Oral Answers to Questions

SCOTLAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Welfare to Work Forum

Ann McKechin: If he will make a statement on the operation of the welfare to work forum in Glasgow.

Alistair Darling: The Government's measures, such as the new deal, have been very successful in moving people from welfare into work. However, more needs to be done and we will continue to work with the Glasgow welfare to work forum, as well as with others.

Ann McKechin: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the ambitious plans of the welfare to work forum to create 30,000 jobs in the city by the end of 2010. Given the current favourable economic conditions and, as reported in this month's Insider magazine, the massive growth in profits of the top 500 companies in Scotland, I believe those plans are achievable, but it will require the closest co-operation between all public agencies—here at Westminster, the local authorities and the Scottish Executive. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that his Department will be actively involved in working with the forum to achieve success for Glasgow?

Alistair Darling: Yes, I can. My hon. Friend is right: what is striking about the forum in Glasgow is the common interest between not only public bodies and others with a long history of trying to help people get into work, but also private sector companies, because they realise that it is in their interest that we expand the work force so that we have more people available for work. It is worth bearing in mind what has happened over the past few years with the new deal: in Glasgow, nearly 5,500 lone parents, 1,400 adults, more than 25,000 people with disability and 1,600 people aged over 50 have moved from welfare into work thanks to the new deal. Many other measures can be taken, but there is a big difference between 10 or 15 years ago, when the then Government either ignored unemployment or thought it an inevitable fact of life, and the situation today where there is universal determination to get as many people into work as possible.

Archy Kirkwood: The Secretary of State is right to acknowledge the valuable work that has been done both through the active labour market policies promoted by the Government and through the forum, as was rightly raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin), but does he not think it slightly strange that training providers are not part of the forum? He is right to say that the commercial sector has a part to play, but there are no training providers on the forum itself. Furthermore, there is no flexibility about some of the funding streams. Up to £90 million may be available to the forum but there is little flexibility in how it can use much of that money. Would not access to training providers and more flexibility in the use of funding make the Glasgow welfare to work forum even more effective than it is now?

Alistair Darling: I am sure that is something the forum would like to consider. I know that the hon. Gentleman, through his experience of chairing the Select Committee on Work and Pensions, will be well aware of the fact that the Department has shown itself open to looking at new ideas in relation to funding. Let me give him an example: the pathways to work programme, which has been very successful in pilot form in getting people into work, is being extended across the whole country and it will include Glasgow.
	I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will continue to keep flexibility under review. The main thing, however, is to concentrate on getting as many people as possible into work, and, especially in Glasgow, the comparatively high number of people on incapacity benefit who really do need to be helped into work as quickly as possible.

David Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the foundation for the welfare to work forum is the tried and tested new deal? Is not it the case that the Liberals opposed the funding of the new deal and that the Tories will abolish it? In contrast to those shameful policies, will the Secretary of State ensure that the necessary resources continue to be made available to tackle the scourge of long-term unemployment and to provide education and training to the youngsters who so desperately need it?

Alistair Darling: I agree with my hon. Friend. The new deal will remain the foundation of everything we do to help people into work. It is worth bearing in mind that employment in Scotland has risen by 174,000 people since 1997. Many of us in Scotland remember what happened in the 1980s and the early 1990s when hundreds and thousands of people were condemned to unemployment, we had a second generation of people growing up who had no experience of work and there was precious little help from the then Government. As for the Liberals, my hon. Friend is right—they are in favour of the new deal, but they were actually against the means of funding it, which is a typical Liberal attitude towards such matters.

John Thurso: Getting people off incapacity benefit and back to work is an important part of welfare to work. Is the Secretary of State aware of the Citizens Advice Scotland report entitled "Riding the Benefits Roller-coaster", which raised serious concerns about the rigidity of the existing system for incapacity benefit and concluded that claimants fall between gaps in the system when their conditions change? What are the Government doing to help people on incapacity benefit get back to work rather than penalising them?

Alistair Darling: As I said just a few moments ago, the Department for Work and Pensions has piloted a programme known as pathways to work, which is specifically designed to help people who are on incapacity benefit to get into work. The pilot scheme has shown that it is much more successful than conventional programmes, precisely because it offers help that is tailored to individuals. I visited a scheme in Renfrewshire a few months ago, with the First Minister, and we met a number of people who had taken part in the pilot scheme and had been got back into work. They had been given help and assistance that they would not receive under conventional schemes. That all shows that, when a Government are determined to work with others to help people into work who, historically, have simply been dumped by the system, we can make a very real difference. The fact that there are now record numbers of people in work, including people coming off incapacity benefit, shows why it is so important to stick with the new deal and not to do away with it, as the Tories would do, so returning us to the days of very high unemployment, when a whole generation of people were simply written off by the then Government.

Identity Cards

Alan Reid: If he will make a statement on the introduction of identity cards in Scotland.

Alistair Darling: So far as reserved issues are concerned, the introduction of identity cards across the United Kingdom is, of course, a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. Decisions on the use of identity cards to access devolved services in Scotland are the responsibility of the Scottish Executive.

Alan Reid: This most appalling Bill will give the Secretary of State dictatorial powers to order people to attend at a specified place and time to have their fingerprints and other biometric information recorded. Given the cost and time of travelling to the passport office in Glasgow from many parts of Scotland, will the Secretary of State assure the House that facilities will be available locally to allow people to attend to have fingerprints and biometric information taken—for example, at local post offices?

Alistair Darling: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of the question that he intended to ask, which I saw on page 6 of The Press & Journal today.

Robert Smith: Have you got an answer?

Alistair Darling: It just about gave me sufficient time to find out the answer. I am glad to say that, as the House may be aware, the Home Office is piloting what will be necessary to implement the ID card scheme in Glasgow. One of the things that it is considering is a mobile facility to enable people to record their details without having to travel, in this case to Glasgow. In any event, when biometric passports are introduced, which, I think, will be in about 2008, it will be necessary for people to attend to have those details recorded. As far as I am aware, the Liberals are not actually against biometric passports, but—who knows?—we could be wrong about that as well.
	I remind the House that the Bill provides for a database to be established to make it possible to have identity cards in the future. For my part, I cannot see anything wrong in principle with people being asked to identify themselves for various transactions. After all, most of us are asked to identify ourselves in respect of various transactions several times a week. It would be a tragedy if, at this stage, we were not to take those steps because they might be absolutely necessary in 10 or 12 years' time. If the Liberals had their way, the country would be ill-prepared to guard against security problems, fraud and so on. So what is proposed is entirely reasonable.

Rosemary McKenna: May I wholeheartedly agree with my right hon. Friend? [Hon. Members: "Yes!"] None of us can have access to this building unless we are wearing an ID card, and I do not see that there is any problem with that. Most hon. Members take them off when they enter the Chamber, but I do not have a problem with wearing it whenever. Does my right hon. Friend agree that Scotland deserves to live in security, with protection from fraud and petty crime, just as much as the citizens of the rest of the UK, and that ID cards must therefore be introduced UK-wide?

Alistair Darling: Of course, the provision of identity cards is reserved to the United Kingdom Parliament—that is why the Bill applies across the whole country—but my hon. Friend is right: increasingly it will not be unreasonable to ask people to identify themselves if they wish to use public services. After all, as I said just a few moments ago, every one of us probably has to identify ourselves when we go to the bank and when we buy things in the shops, and that is not a great imposition.
	In relation to security, increasingly, whether we like it or not, not just in this place but elsewhere as well, it will be necessary for people to be satisfied about the identity of individuals, and I do not think that there is anything wrong with that in principle. The problem that the Liberal Democrats have is that they are in favour of security in principle, but rather like their policy on the new deal, they are against the practical means of achieving it.

Alex Salmond: May I wholeheartedly disagree with the Secretary of State? Does he accept that if identity cards are compulsory for Westminster-provided services, they are then compulsory in Scotland, regardless of what Mr. McConnell and the Scottish Executive say? Can he confirm that the cost of introducing identity cards over the next 10 years in Scotland is more than £500 million, enough to pay for 2,000 extra police officers in the communities of Scotland? What would make people in Scotland feel safer: a plastic identity card or extra thousands of police officers?

Alistair Darling: Of course, thanks to the money that we have made available to Scotland, because of the economic prosperity that has been built up over the past seven years there are more policemen in Scotland. There are also more teachers, nurses and doctors. So as far as public services are concerned, we can provide that.
	In relation to identity cards, the fact that the hon. Gentleman disagrees with me comes as no surprise. It is hardly news that it may be necessary to have an ID card to access benefits, for example, in Scotland in future. Does he say that there is anything wrong with asking someone on benefits to identify themselves? The Scottish Executive have made it clear, however, that they do not propose to require the use of ID cards for accessing the NHS in Scotland. That is an entirely proper decision for them to take. However, I repeat the point: what is wrong in principle with people identifying themselves so that others are satisfied they are entitled to use services? I defy him to answer that. I see nothing wrong with that in principle and cannot for the life of me understand why he takes such a ridiculous attitude.

EU Fisheries Council

Angus Robertson: What discussions he has held with ministerial colleagues on the outcome of the EU Fisheries Council in December.

Anne McGuire: Colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Scottish Executive and the Northern Ireland Office worked very closely in the run-up to and during the Fisheries Council in December. The deal they secured is a good one for Scottish fishermen. The Departments are working together and with the industry to implement the agreement. I am delighted that the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), has joined us on the Front Bench.

Angus Robertson: I thank the Minister for her answer. She will be aware that past and current EU restrictions have led to the decommissioning and scrapping of sea-worthy boats. Do the UK Government agree that it makes little sense to scrap boats when they have been offered to tsunami-hit fishing communities in south-east Asia? Commissioner Borg has said that emergency legislation could be brought before the Council of Ministers in the near future to fund the transfer of vessels and gear. Will the UK Government support that?

Anne McGuire: I congratulate the white fish producers' initiative on offering aid to the disaster area in south-east Asia. I give the hon. Gentleman every assurance that we will do all that we can to support that initiative.

Anne Begg: What assessment has my hon. Friend made of the enhanced cod recovery programme? What difference will that make to ensuring the sustainability of the Scottish fishing fleet?

Anne McGuire: We must all recognise—I hope all hon. Members agree with this, although I have a niggling suspicion that the official Opposition may not—that the recovery programmes and the recent negotiations offer a sustainable future for our fishing communities. The House does not need to listen to me on this. Those in the industry have made a series of comments, including:
	"Fishermen now believe in the future . . . it has to be a future based on legality and long-term recovery plans".
	I am only too delighted to identify who made that comment. It was Mike Park, vice-president of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation.

Calum MacDonald: On behalf of west coast fishermen, may I express my appreciation to the Fisheries Minister for achieving for, I believe, the first time an increase in the west coast prawn quota, which is the bedrock of the west coast industry? I hope that that will be the first step towards further enhancements of that quota at future Brussels meetings.
	Will my hon. Friend congratulate the west coast fishermen's association on the way in which it worked with marine laboratory scientists to develop new techniques to research the state of the west coast prawn stocks? That should be seen as a model of co-operation between scientists and fishermen in the future.

Anne McGuire: I am only too delighted to offer my congratulations. As some Members know, I take a great interest in the west coast prawn stocks. They did very well over Christmas, and made a lovely accompaniment to turkey and cranberry sauce at a Christmas dinner not very far from where my hon. Friend stays.

Peter Duncan: Given the Minister's family interest in the issue, has she asked her colleagues for their views on why the fishing fleets of Norway, Iceland and the Faroe Islands are successful and are expanding while the Scots fleet has been decimated?

Anne McGuire: I suppose that the hon. Gentleman is still on a learning curve on fishing. There are different circumstances in different countries, but I also want to draw to the attention of the House the fact that, despite all the evidence to the contrary, the Conservative party in Scotland announced yesterday that it intends to withdraw from the common fisheries policy. The hon. Gentleman said that that is "not some silly proposal", but it is. If the Conservatives withdrew from the CFP, they would have to negotiate with a range of countries. Fish in the sea do not swim around with little flags saying "I'm a British fish" or "I'm a Norwegian fish". The Conservative party must get real about fisheries policy.

Peter Duncan: The Minister must accept that the problem is that we do not have any fish swimming around, as the CFP has emptied our seas of fish. The problems faced by Scotland's fishermen are almost exclusively the result of the CFP itself. The Scotland Office has a poor track record in standing up for Scotland's interest. Will it now do so, and recommend either to the Prime Minister or to the Chancellor, whoever is in charge this week, that he return fisheries policy to local and national control?

Anne McGuire: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman does not accept that fish stocks have stabilised, although some stock levels are still critical. The conservation measures adopted in the various packages are beginning to work. Not only did the hon. Gentleman say that withdrawing from the CFP is not a silly proposal but he accused it of emptying the seas. If ever something was foolish, it is the way in which the Conservative party allows its Euroscepticism to undermine the good negotiations on fisheries policy and their outcomes, which have been accepted and applauded by the industry.

Peter Duncan: I am glad that the Minister has become excited again during our annual exchange on fisheries. She is right—we will return our fisheries to local and national control, we will withdraw from the CFP, and Scotland's fishermen will be the better for it. Does she agree that the people best placed to manage Scotland's fisheries are fishermen themselves, not politicians in Edinburgh, London or Brussels?

Anne McGuire: The way to manage our fisheries stocks across Europe is to make sure that we have a balance between conservation and fishing. We must work together to ensure that the North sea continues to provide fishing communities across Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom with a living, but the reality is that the hon. Gentleman's policy would do neither.

Energy Policy

George Foulkes: If he will meet the First Minister to discuss the requirements for a balanced energy policy for Scotland.

Alistair Darling: I have regular meetings with the First Minister to discuss a wide range of issues.

George Foulkes: But has the Secretary of State noticed that the people who are now objecting to renewable energy sources such as wind farms are exactly the same people who object to nuclear power and opencast mining, and are supported by Scottish National party MPs and MSPs? Is it not true that if they had their way, there would no sources for electricity generation and the lights would go out all over Scotland?

Alistair Darling: I agree with my right hon. Friend that the logic of the nationalists' position is that the lights would go out in Scotland, as they are against nuclear power, wind farms and opencast coal mining. It is difficult to see where the electricity would come from. Dare I say that perhaps they would import it from the hated England? Nationalist policy is nonsense and, as I have said in the House before, it is important that we have a balanced energy policy and that we can draw electricity from a number of sources. Renewable energy from wind farms is an important strand of that policy, but we must also pay regard to the important role played by nuclear power, as my right hon. Friend knows, given that he represents a seat in Ayrshire.

Alistair Carmichael: The Secretary of State will be aware that the balanced energy mix will require significant growth in renewable generation. Allied to that, it is important that we get the regime right for transmission charging. The third proposal by the National Grid Company for renewable projects in the mainland highlands has caused serious concern about the viability of generation there, and we still do not have any proposals at all for projects in the western or northern isles. Will the Secretary of State pursue that with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the chairman of Ofgem as a matter of urgency so that we in the isles are not excluded from the benefits of renewable generation?

Alistair Darling: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern. The new scheme has the advantage of removing interconnector charges between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. That will bring large benefits, which will also go to Scottish consumers.
	The hon. Gentleman is right that we should not disadvantage generators. In particular, we should not disadvantage proposals for wind farms or wave power generation on the islands. Ofgem will reach a decision in February. I hope that it takes on board the legitimate concerns of generators and others in Scotland. We must ensure that electricity generation in Scotland can compete on fair terms with electricity generation in other parts of the United Kingdom.

Pensioner Poverty

John Robertson: What recent discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on pensioner poverty in Scotland.

Anne McGuire: My right hon. Friend discusses a wide range of issues with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. My hon. Friend knows that tackling pensioner poverty is one of this Government's key policies.

John Robertson: In Anniesland, more than 13,500 pensioner households are receiving the winter fuel allowance and more than 5,100 pensioner households receive an average pension credit of £45. Will my hon. Friend ensure that the Chancellor not only continues that support for the poorest pensioners in our society, but does more for them?

Anne McGuire: I agree with my hon. Friend, whose constituency has one of the highest proportions of pensioner households in Scotland. He works assiduously to make sure that pensioners in his constituency get all their rightful benefits.

ADVOCATE-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND

The Advocate-General was asked—

Devolution

Annabelle Ewing: What devolution issues have been raised with her since 30 November 2004.

Alan Reid: What devolution issues she has considered since 30 November 2004.

Ann McKechin: What devolution issues she has considered since 30 November 2004.

Alistair Carmichael: What devolution issues she has considered since 30 November 2004.

Lynda Clark: Since 30 November, 67 devolution issues have been intimated to me: 36 devolution issues related to criminal matters, including pre-trial delay, self incrimination under section 172 of the Road Traffic Acts and satellite monitoring of fishing vessels; the remaining 31 devolution issues related to civil matters, almost all of which concerned prison conditions.

Annabelle Ewing: Is the Advocate-General aware of any discrepancy in the Scotland Act 1998 that means that it is essential for the Prime Minister to declare his stay with a pop star, but that it is not essential for the First Minister to declare his stay with a political pundit?

Lynda Clark: No.

Alan Reid: The Advocate-General has said that 67 cases were notified to her. Will she tell hon. Members the number of cases in which she acted and the length of time that she spent doing so?

Lynda Clark: Many of those cases—for example, the pre-trial delay cases—were copycat cases in which I had examined the legal issues in detail in relation to other cases. In one or two of those cases, I intervened and appeared in Privy Council to deal with the legal issues. Such matters depend on the type of issue and whether the issue has been raised before. I did not intervene on any of the particular issues intimated to me in the past month, but some of those issues have been raised in other cases, one or two of which I have intervened in.

Ann McKechin: My hon. and learned Friend will be aware that the Gambling Bill is currently passing through the House and that it has important implications for Scotland. What discussions has she had with the Scottish Executive about the regulatory regime in Scotland? In particular, the Government indicated on Second Reading that use class orders in England and Wales will be changed to separate bingo clubs and casino premises. Has she received any indications from the Scottish Executive on whether they intend to pass similar legislation to amend planning in Scotland?

Lynda Clark: The important matters that my hon. Friend raises relate to policy, not legal issues. Policy discussions would not normally be carried out by me but by the relevant policy Ministers, including my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
	It may be of some assistance if I give an overview of legal regulatory matters as I see them at the moment. My hon. Friend will be aware that although gambling is a reserved matter, Scottish Ministers exercise some powers as a consequence of Executive devolution. The Bill proposes that the Gambling Commission will regulate commercial gambling and issue operating and personal licences. There will be a right of appeal against that to the Gambling Appeals Tribunal. In addition, it is important to understand that licensing boards, which are devolved, will regulate the gambling premises and that the devolved planning structure will apply.

Alistair Carmichael: May I invite the Advocate-General to give some advice to her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland on his power in the Crown Estate Act 1961 to issue directions to the Crown estate commissioners? I suggest that had he done so, the shellfish farmers in my constituency and elsewhere in Scotland would not have found themselves in the position that they did shortly before Christmas, when they were faced with massive increases in the rents that they have to pay to the Crown estate commissioners, who are the only possible landlord to whom they can turn.

Lynda Clark: I am always happy to give any advice that is asked for by colleagues.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary was asked—

Essex Magistrates Court

Bob Russell: If he will review the procedures relating to the private finance initiative for Essex magistrates court.

Christopher Leslie: My Department continually reviews and monitors private finance initiative procedures for new court building projects, including plans for Essex magistrates courts, to secure the most effective and efficient contracts on behalf of the taxpayer.

Bob Russell: May I urge the Minister to take a personal grip on this particular issue, as the position to date has been absolutely lamentable? The time that has elapsed since the day that the decision on the private finance initiative for the new Colchester courthouse was taken is longer than the duration of the second world war. If Churchill can win a war in six years, why cannot this Minister build a new courthouse?

Christopher Leslie: It is certainly a challenge that I am tempted to take up. I have to say, however, that we are at an early stage in contracting for this private finance initiative. I understand the hon. Gentleman's keenness to see such older court facilities improved and to get on with the more exciting proposals that are on the table, but we have a duty to ensure, on behalf of the taxpayer, that the contractual arrangements that we enter into are fit and proper and efficient, and we are working on that.

Claims Handlers

Paddy Tipping: What steps he is taking to regulate the activities of claims handlers.

David Lammy: The claims management sector must be properly regulated. We have given claims handlers one last chance to put their house in order. If they do not, we will consider how formal regulation could be introduced in the context of our consideration of Sir David Clementi's report.

Paddy Tipping: Does the Minister accept that in coalfield areas such as mine, claims handlers are causing real difficulties by making unnecessary charges for coal health claims and raising unrealistic expectations about industrial injury claims, and that some of them seem to have intimate connections with firms of solicitors? Many of us do not want our constituents to continue to be ripped off in this way, so is this the last-chance saloon?

David Lammy: Yes, it most definitely is. My hon. Friend will know that last year the Law Society did much work on this with solicitors' firms. The cold-calling, sharp practices and unfair preying on vulnerable people must stop. We have asked the Claims Standards Council to consider the situation and to work with the industry on getting its house in order. If it does not, we will regulate to deal with the gaps.

Henry Bellingham: Am I right that one of the drivers of the proliferation of claims handlers is the no win, no fee rule, which has also led to a big increase in so-called ambulance chasers? What is the Under-Secretary going to do about contingency fees?

David Lammy: The hon. Gentleman will know that a previous Administration largely introduced the contingency fee regime. We have tried to simplify the regulations. The Better Regulation Task Force considered the matter, we accepted many of its recommendations and we are moving forward.

Kevan Jones: Companies such as Industrial Disease Compensation Ltd., which is an unscrupulous claims handling firm in the north-east, cannot operate without close relationships with law firms, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) said. Will my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary consider meeting coalfield Members of Parliament to discuss the issue? What representations will he make to the Law Society, which has a key role to play in ensuring that the act is cleaned up?

David Lammy: I absolutely agree to meet Members who represent coalfield areas. I have regular discussions with the Law Society and have raised such issues with it in the past. I also have upcoming meetings. We take the matter seriously. As I said, the Government are actively considering regulation—but let us meet, continue the dialogue and ensure that we can bring the practice to an end.

Oliver Heald: The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux issued a report last month on the claims farmers—unqualified intermediaries who are engaged in high pressure sales tactics and often mislead the public into ill-conceived litigation. If we consider that report with the comments that have been made, is it not odd that the Under-Secretary's policy is to allow those people to go further and take over or set up high street solicitors' practices? How will he tackle the abuses?

David Lammy: The hon. Gentleman is confused. The Government's policy has been to ask Sir David Clementi to consider the issues and to act once we have examined his report. We have said clearly that we need the right provisions to ensure that there are no sharp practices on the high street. We are working with the Law Society. David Clementi has specifically considered those matters and we are dealing with the issue; the Conservative Government did not.

Andrew Dismore: I first raised the problems of claims assessors when I was elected in 1997, but the position has got worse. Claims assessors feed the myth of the compensation culture rather than present the facts. Would it not be more appropriate to regulate now, ask Clementi to reconsider the matter with specific reference to the proposed legal services board and suggest that claims assessors should be brought under its auspices in the same way as other people in practice? Is not the best advice to people who are injured simply to go to a reputable specialist personal injury lawyer, from whom they will get a much better deal than from the crooks?

David Lammy: I know that my hon. Friend has campaigned on those issues for many years. I also know what the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers has said in the past few weeks about the matter. He knows that Sir David Clementi has just reported. We must examine the detail of the report, but we must also let the Claims Standards Council at least to have the opportunity to rectify the position.

Written Constitution

David Taylor: What recent representations he has received on the establishment of a written constitution for the United Kingdom.

Christopher Leslie: I have received occasional representations on the establishment of a written constitution from some hon. Members in the course of parliamentary questions and debate. However, my officials have no record of any correspondence from the public on the matter since September.

David Taylor: The current British constitution is an amalgam of documents such as Magna Carta, Acts of Parliament, case law and convention. It provides little protection for the rights of citizens, and none for the legacy of Governments. Does my hon. Friend agree that in the face of the Conservative commitment to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998 on that far-off day when a Conservative Government are returned to office, all such future reforms must be entrenched in the British constitution so that changes can occur only through special measures such as super-majorities in this place or referendums in the country?

Christopher Leslie: It is not the case that most of our constitution is unwritten. Large parts of it are enshrined in statute law, including the human rights legislation to which my hon. Friend referred and the distribution of powers relating to the devolved Administrations. This is not just a question of the codification of a constitution; it is more about any reforms to it that are proposed. We have a series of reforms for improving the separation of powers between the legislature, the Executive and the judiciary, and they will be put before the House shortly.

Andrew Robathan: If a written constitution were put in place, would the Minister's boss, the Lord Chancellor, who advocates constitutional change in the other place, still be required to qualify for his job by being either a friend or a former flatmate of the Prime Minister?

Christopher Leslie: I wonder whether that was a slightly facetious question. I suspect that it was, and I shall therefore not dignify it with a substantive answer.

Tony Wright: The Queen once said that she found the British constitution a bit of a puzzle. Would it not help to clear up that puzzle if we began to write a lot of it down? As my hon. Friend the Minister said, this Government have done a lot more writing down of provisions on matters such as human rights and freedom of information. Although it might not have made much sense a long time ago to try to codify the constitution, surely we have now reached a point at which some kind of codification would be sensible. Could not the Government produce a draft, so that we could see what it might propose?

Christopher Leslie: With respect to my hon. Friend, we could spend a great deal of time and effort on such a codification, but I am not convinced that it would achieve a great deal, particularly when there are so many other pressing priorities for legislative time. We need to have an eye to what our constituents want us to spend time talking about in Parliament.

Eric Forth: Has the Minister acquainted himself with the work of the founding fathers in the United States, whose genius provided the Americans with a constitution that has protected them for more than two centuries from the kind of capricious changes that this Government have made to our governmental arrangements? Does the Minister agree that it would serve the British people well if we had a genius similar to that of the founding fathers to protect us from his Government?

Christopher Leslie: This Administration are doing a pretty good job of reforming and improving our constitution; in that respect, I think that we are trying our best. Just because a constitution is written and codified does not mean that it will not be amended or reformed, even in the United States. I do not therefore believe that this question rests on codification. The focus of attention should be more on how a constitution evolves and improves.

Clementi Review

Vera Baird: If he will make a statement on Sir David Clementi's review of the regulation of the legal profession.

David Lammy: I refer my hon. and learned Friend to my earlier statement, made on Wednesday 15 December 2004.

Vera Baird: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and I appreciate that some aspects of Clementi have already been discussed today. One recommendation that he makes, which has already been made by the Office of Fair Trading, is that the traditional rules on the way in which the legal profession is organised—with barristers being unable to go into partnerships, and clients having to go to a solicitor before seeing a barrister, for example—impede the public's access to cheap, high quality legal services. Does the Minister agree that access to legal services is very important and that non-access to them represents an element of social exclusion that we cannot tolerate? Does he also agree that some of Clementi's suggestions are capable—subject to safeguards about the independence of the profession—of expanding the availability of legal services to our client group, especially to poorer people?

David Lammy: My hon. and learned Friend knows that we have broadly accepted the recommendations of Sir David Clementi, but we have to look at the detail. She will also have heard the discussions that we have had on the matter this morning. It is right that we should find ways of getting outside investment into our law firms, and ways in which lawyers and non-lawyers can work together, but we have to have the right safeguards in place. We must therefore consider in detail the introduction of legal disciplinary practices by speaking to all the stakeholders involved, particularly consumer groups and members of the legal profession.

David Heath: There might be some frustration among the general public at the time scale involved in introducing the regulatory and complaints proposals through a White Paper and the statutory process. In regard to the issue raised by the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) on legal disciplinary practices, has the Minister formed a view as to whether the "fit to own" suggestion by Sir David Clementi should be implemented by statute—and if so, at what sort of threshold—and whether a maximum stake should be set by law for outside interests in lawyers' practices?

David Lammy: The hon. Gentleman's question cuts to the heart of the issues. We have not formed a view, but we are consulting and talking to ensure that we get any such outcome right. He is right that the safeguards regarding the "fit to profit" test are at the centre of the discussion, and if we are to have outside ownership we must get the balance right. We are consulting and talking and I have a round of meetings over the next few months so that we can get into the detail.

John Mann: The Law Society yet again reiterated yesterday that it does not have the power to force solicitors to repay money to their clients if that has been erroneously deducted to a third party such as a claims handler. In what time scale can we expect action to stop that scandal?

David Lammy: If there are particular problems, let me hear about them so that we can deal with them. My hon. Friend knows that the whole point of asking Sir David Clementi to examine the entire issue was so that we could get the statutory footing right. If the Law Society does not have powers, the Government can deal with that.

Jonathan Djanogly: The final report of Sir David Clementi on the regulatory framework for English and Welsh legal services has been well received by most interested parties and certainly by the official Opposition. On the report's suggestion for designing a suitable regulatory system, are the Government in favour of model A, model B or model B-plus?

David Lammy: I have now said several times that we got the report in December and that it is right for us to consider and consult on it. We have indicated that we want to move towards a White Paper, but let us get on with detailed discussions with the legal profession, of which the hon. Gentleman is part.

Mental Capacity Bill

Ben Chapman: If he will make a statement on the Lord Chancellor's recent discussions with the Archbishop of Cardiff on the Mental Capacity Bill.

David Lammy: We have had an ongoing dialogue with the Archbishop of Cardiff and other stakeholders. The dialogue has been a success and has improved and reinforced the Bill. I undertook on Report to reinforce the Bill further, which is why we will amend it in another place so that when the best-interest determination relates to life-sustaining treatment, a decision maker must not be motivated by a desire to bring about a person's death, regardless of what would be in his best interests.

Ben Chapman: Those of us who have been concerned about some aspects of what is overall a good Bill will draw some reassurance from what my hon. Friend says. Will he add to that reassurance by making it clear that the word "decision", as used in the Bill, covers omissions as well as acts?

David Lammy: The reason we have continued the dialogue that we have held, especially with the Catholic Church, is to make the Bill better. We should not forget the many millions of people who will benefit from the Bill. It was because of the dialogue that we had clause 58 and were able to rule out euthanasia. It was because of the dialogue that we were able to strengthen aspects of the Bill relating to advance decisions and that we were able to establish that anyone with the motivation of bringing about death—that is at the heart of the discussion about omission—should not be able to do so.

Patrick Cormack: Why does not the Minister get rid of all this jargon? Why does he not talk about conversations rather than dialogue, and why does he not ask his officials to write answers that he can read to the House that are written in the Queen's English and comprehensible to all those who listen?

David Lammy: I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands that the decisions are important and that serious cases regarding life-sustaining treatment go through our courts each year. Whether he likes it or not, Law Lords and judges in the Court of Appeal spend a long time discussing such issues. I am sorry that he does not understand the legal position on life-sustaining treatment, but I give absolutely no apology for making that clear to the House.

Jim Dobbin: Is the Minister aware of the concerns of disability rights groups such as the "I Decide" coalition about the Bill, and will the Government take those concerns into consideration? Their concerns are similar to those to which Baroness Chapman alluded in her excellent speech, if he has had time to read it, in the debate in the House of Lords yesterday.

David Lammy: Yes, I am aware of those concerns. This is a question of getting the balance right between those in the "I Decide" coalition who want to ensure that those who lack capacity and who are disabled have rights, and those who have taken up issues in relation to life-sustaining treatment. Dialogue has taken place because of that balance, and I am sure that we will achieve a compromise with which everyone is satisfied.

Magistrates

Richard Ottaway: What plans he has to remunerate magistrates.

Christopher Leslie: Although lay magistrates in England and Wales are not remunerated, they receive reimbursement for their travel costs and loss of earnings resulting from the discharge of their official duties. Further resources are not available to change that arrangement at this time.

Richard Ottaway: That relates only to certain magistrates, and it was a fairly mealy-mouthed answer to those who deal with 97 per cent. of the crime in this country. The Government impose a huge number of demands on magistrates who do fantastic work both inside the courts and outside, such as extra training in relation to antisocial behaviour orders. The reserve forces get bounties, and councillors get paid and only have to show their face in the council chamber once every six months. Why cannot the Minister remunerate people who do something useful in the community?

Christopher Leslie: Of course, I agree that magistrates do a fantastic job and we owe them a great debt for their role in the local administration of justice across the country. However, the hon. Gentleman's plan for remunerating and paying thousands of magistrates is not on our agenda right now. If the Conservative party proposes to add that to its list of spending commitments, that shows how hollow its commitment to the shadow Chancellor's supposed tax-cutting agenda is. It could not afford the plan and, in fact, it proposes to scrap pretty much all of this particular Department.

LEADER OF THE HOUSE

The Leader of the House was asked—

New Voters' Guide

Shona McIsaac: What plans he has to send a new voters' guide to every 18-year-old.

Peter Hain: The Modernisation Committee, which I chair, recommended that the House devise a new voters' guide to be sent to all young people around the time of their 18th birthday. The House of Commons Commission has authorised further exploration of this proposal and has stated that it would not authorise the production and distribution of such a guide without the prior approval of the House, which I hope to seek soon.

Shona McIsaac: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. I wonder, however, whether he has read some of the research that reveals that turnout among first-time voters is low because many of those young people simply do not know what to do when they get into the polling station. Such a measure would therefore complement the work of many Members of Parliament, schools and colleges. Were the House to support such a measure, when would he anticipate a guide being sent to new voters?

Peter Hain: I very much agree with my hon. Friend's point. Indeed, I recall an incident in the Islwyn by-election when I knocked on a door and an 18-year-old came to the door who asked me, "If I make a mistake in the polling booth, will they have a go at me?" She did not ask me what would happen if she voted one way or the other. There was therefore a degree of concern, worry and intimidation in her question. The sending out of a new voters' guide, possibly in your name, Mr. Speaker, would explain to every young person their democratic rights and opportunities and how to vote. Closing the gap between young people and Westminster would be a big boost for democracy.

Bob Spink: Would the Leader of the House consider sending, along with the guide, contact and surgery details relating to new voters' MPs?

Peter Hain: I think that that is the responsibility of the House of Commons, but there is a good chance of that happening.

Regional Grand Committees

Lindsay Hoyle: If he will make provision for Grand Committees for each region in the UK.

Phil Woolas: As my hon. Friend knows, there is already a Scottish Grand Committee, a Welsh Grand Committee and a Northern Ireland Grand Committee, and the Standing Committee on Regional Affairs fulfils much the same function for England. It is open to the Standing Committee to meet to discuss a topic of concern to a particular region, and any Member for an English constituency may attend. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is open to suggestion for potential topics for debate.

Lindsay Hoyle: That was an interesting answer. What we ought to be saying is that we should enfranchise Members in, for instance, the north-west following the rejection of regional government. There ought to be a way of making quangos accountable, and to provide the same benefits that Scotland and Wales have enjoyed in the House of Commons. It is only right for us to have a regional Question Time allowing us to make Ministers accountable to the Members who are affected by their decisions. Will my hon. Friend consider a trial programme for a region such as the north-west, which has a larger population and gross domestic product than Scotland? We could then judge whether there were benefits in the extension of such Question Times to other regions.

Phil Woolas: I certainly think that the north-west should be first to be involved in any such trial. That much is obvious to my right hon. Friend and me. My right hon. Friend agrees that those of us who represent English regions should have opportunities to debate regional issues. He would be willing to consider the option of English regional Grand Committees if there were widespread support for it, but it is not clear that such Committees would offer significantly more advantages than the current Standing Committee on Regional Affairs. That Committee can and does debate issues of regional interest: for example, it last met to debate regional economic performance and the Northern Way.
	When my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local and Regional Government canvassed on the idea of separate Standing Committees—first raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice)—it found little favour.

Patrick McLoughlin: Can the Minister tell us how many times the Standing Committee on Regional Affairs has met during the seven years for which it has been meeting?

Phil Woolas: I recall that when I was the Committee's Whip it was difficult to persuade many Members to attend, but it has held useful meetings on a number of matters—[Hon. Members: "Answer."] I am about to answer. It has held meetings on a number of matters, including the important Northern Way economic strategy and planning policy—the regional policy raised by the hon. Gentleman's own party.
	I repeat that this is a matter for Members in the English regions. If there is support for the idea of debating issues in the Standing Committee, that is open to the Committee.

Jim Cousins: Does my hon. Friend accept that we are faced with a growing accountability deficit? In the north-east, the regional development agency is engaged in discussions aimed at identifying a site for a mega-casino—one site somewhere in the north-east. No public accountability applies to those discussions and processes, which is unacceptable. Will the Government now address that?

Phil Woolas: My hon. Friend has raised an important point relating to the accountability of regional bodies for regional decisions. That is why my right hon. Friend is encouraging participation in the Standing Committee.

Sitting Hours

Meg Munn: What recommendations he has made to the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House for the future sitting hours of the House.

Peter Hain: The Modernisation Committee published its report on sitting hours this morning. A copy has been sent to every Member. It recommends that the current hours be made permanent, with sittings beginning an hour earlier on Thursdays to accommodate more substantial business and rebalance the sitting week. I intend to give the House an opportunity to reach a decision on our future sitting hours in the next few weeks.

Meg Munn: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer and congratulate the Committee on its report.
	Does my right hon. Friend agree that at a time when the Government are requiring public services such as the health service to modernise, it would be very negative of the House to vote to return to its former ways of working, rather than seeking to balance the unique role of Parliament with more modern ways of working that better reflect the experience of the constituents whom we represent?

Peter Hain: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. It would be wrong for this House to revert to the working hours of the Victorian era. We should reflect modern working practices and that is what the Committee recommends.

Oliver Heald: It should not be for the Modernisation Committee to lecture the House—[Interruption.] The responses of Members of Parliament to the Procedure Committee's questionnaire showed that only—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is too much conversation among the Whips, who have been talking for the best part of half an hour. It is going to stop, or the hon. Member in question will be removed from the Chamber.

Oliver Heald: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
	Only 31 per cent. of Members wanted to keep the current Tuesday hours, while 65 per cent. wanted the House to sit on Tuesday evenings. Of course, there are some good things in the report that I support, but the plea that the Committee is making in respect of Tuesdays is a rather desperate one. Surely we are entitled to take our own decisions on these matters, and if the House takes the view that it is more convenient to sit on Tuesday evenings, it should be able to do so. Can the Leader of the House assure us that there will be an early vote on restoring Tuesday evening sittings?

Peter Hain: I certainly can assure the hon. Gentleman that there will be an opportunity for an early vote. As he points out, there are deep feelings about the issue of Tuesdays, on which the House is divided. I had hoped to achieve a consensus through the Committee's work and through my prior consultations with many Members from all parts of the House—I thank those who took part—but it was not possible. In the end, the House will make the decision, but the view that the Modernisation Committee formed on this matter was a majority one. Its report is excellent and I commend it to every Member.

Peter Pike: Is it not a fact that the Modernisation Committee has considered all the evidence very carefully? The shadow Leader of the House said that Members want to sit on Tuesday evenings, and it is true that quite a large number want to take private Members' Bills then and to cancel all Friday sittings. The report recognises that this issue will have to be considered at a later stage, but is it not a fact that in focusing on the entire sitting week and the particular problems associated with Thursdays, the report has tried to give the House a balanced view, based on all the evidence submitted to it during the inquiry?

Peter Hain: I agree with my hon. Friend. There was a strong argument in favour of shifting private Members' Bills perhaps to Tuesday evenings—indeed, probably a majority of Committee members were in favour of that idea—thereby making all Fridays constituency days. But we did not want to do that in isolation from the wider issues associated with private Members' Bills, which is why the report reached the conclusion that it did. The point that my hon. Friend makes is important, in that it is wrong always to have, in effect, a lot of one-line business on a Thursday and to risk the danger of becoming a House of Commons that sits for only part of the week. That is why we recommend sitting for an additional hour on Thursdays, and I hope that the House will support that recommendation. Doing so will enable Second Readings and Opposition days to be taken and a rebalancing of the week, so that we work a full week and go back to our constituencies on Fridays.

Hunting Act 2004

Gerald Kaufman: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the Government's policy towards applications in the courts for injunctions to delay or to prevent the commencement of the Hunting Act 2004.

Alun Michael: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for his question, because it enables me to provide the House with some clarity in respect of issues that have been rather muddled in the press and other media comment. It might assist the House if I explain the legal and policy background to this issue before coming to the specifics of what we expect to happen in court on 25 January. I shall deal in particular with the challenge mounted by the Countryside Alliance to the validity of the Hunting Act 2004, which is based specifically on its argument that the Parliament Act 1949 is invalid. We disagree. We do not believe that its challenge will succeed, and we will vigorously contest that challenge.
	In view of some confused press comment, I must make it clear that what I am about to say has nothing whatever to do with any possible challenge under the European convention on human rights. Those who suggest that there could be a long delay in commencement from 25 January because of a human rights challenge are incorrect and misinformed, as incorporation challenges on human rights grounds are dealt with in our own courts under the Human Rights Act 1998. We do not have such a challenge as yet, but a challenge to the Scottish legislation failed, and we would not expect a different outcome here. In any event, human rights challenges are usually dealt with following commencement of legislation, and there are plenty of precedents. There are two possible avenues of challenge, and they are unrelated, as is our response to them. I want to be absolutely clear about that.
	Let me now come to the Parliament Act challenge. The point of that challenge, to be heard on 25 January, is to allow the Countryside Alliance to promote its claim that the Hunting Act 2004 is not valid law. We expect that challenge to fail. It is only after the court has decided against that Countryside Alliance claim that any issue of delay becomes relevant. As the chairman of the Countryside Alliance himself made clear, lawyers have already discussed the next steps, as is quite normal in advance of a court hearing. Having failed, the alliance will seek leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. If that is granted—it is a matter for the court—it says that it will seek an injunction to delay commencement of the Act from 18 February. As hon. Members are aware, that date is three months after Royal Assent, as provided for in the Hunting Act itself, and the Countryside Alliance intends to seek a delay until after its appeal has been heard.
	I do not know what view the court will take, but we neither oppose nor support such an application if we reach that stage—and for two reasons. First, we want certainty, and supporters of hunting have claimed that there is uncertainty. The right place for their challenge is in the courts. We confidently expect to have our view that the Act is valid upheld. We expect the case and any subsequent appeal to be dealt with quite quickly, and no one will then have reason for any doubt whatever or for believing that they might be justified in undertaking activity that is, in fact, illegal. Secondly, we are relaxed because the date of commencement of 18 February was neither the Government's proposal nor what the House voted for. MPs voted for 31 July 2006. It is the Countryside Alliance and its representatives in the Lords, through what the media described as the kamikaze option, who rejected that date and insisted on retaining early commencement.
	What is in the Act is a matter of fact, and it is for the courts to interpret what is in the Act. I suggest that any colleague who says, in effect, that those who made their bed must now lie on it, should also be relaxed and leave it to the courts. We are confident that the Hunting Act is valid and rightly fulfils the will of the elected Chamber of Parliament. We are confident that the result of the court hearing will uphold that view and do so soon, providing certainty for everyone on all sides of the debate.

Gerald Kaufman: Will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that there have been no discussions between the Government and the Countryside Alliance on this issue behind the back of the House of Commons, which has expressed its will repeatedly by large majorities? Will he further confirm that, whatever the courts may be able to do, they are not able to change the text of an Act of Parliament, and the Hunting Act lays down commencement three calendar months after enactment on 18 November? Will he take it from me and many other Members that we are sick and tired of hearing two voices coming from the Front Bench on this dispute? The House of Commons has expressed its will that it does not want any fiddling or messing about: it wants this Act of Parliament to come into force and to do so without the Government conniving with the Countryside Alliance to prevent it.

Alun Michael: I urge my right hon. Friend not to give in to any temptation to believe that there are two voices coming from the Government, nor to indulge in conspiracy theories. I am happy to give him all the assurances that he requests on these matters. First, he asked what discussions had taken place. I have confirmed precisely what the chairman of the Countryside Alliance said: that there have been discussions between lawyers about what will happen when a case comes before the court. It is as simple as that. No other discussions are of any relevance whatever.
	Secondly, my right hon. Friend asked about what the Hunting Act states. As I have made clear, it states that commencement will be three months after Royal Assent. It is not for me to say what the court will make of that. I simply do not know. Neither am I a lawyer nor do I seek to look into the court's mind. The court must do its work, just as this House did when it decided on the legislation.
	Finally, I assure my right hon. Friend that the Government do not have two voices on this matter. There is only one voice. I have articulated the Government's position, which has been consistent throughout. I am very pleased that many hon. Members who worked passionately to bring the Hunting Act into law believe that my approach, which I articulated in December, is right. We want the law to be clear. It is the Countryside Alliance, not the Government, that is attempting to cause confusion, and we want that confusion to be set aside authoritatively by the court. After that, let everyone obey the law of the land.

James Gray: There can be no precedent for the way in which the Government used the Parliament Act to ram through a Bill and then immediately briefed the press to the effect that they would not object to a judicial delay to its implementation. The Minister is right to say that that delay is a matter not for the Government or the Attorney-General but for the court. The Government's view is irrelevant and does not matter at all. In that case, surely the briefing given by No. 10 in advance of the Boxing day meets can be seen as nothing other than a grubby political ploy to avoid too great a political outcry in the run-up to the general election?

Alun Michael: That was a pretty pathetic attempt. The hon. Gentleman has introduced nonsense to the debate, and it is clear that he did not listen to the answer that I gave to my right hon. Friend. The Government did not ram through the Hunting Act. The House voted 10 times in 10 years for the essential content of what is a good piece of legislation. That should be respected, as we now have an Act of Parliament. The Countryside Alliance has every right to challenge it in the courts and to set out its beliefs in a proper and constitutional way. That is what is happening, and we should await the outcome.
	The hon. Gentleman spoke about a briefing. I am not sure what briefing the Countryside Alliance gave. I first heard its chairman say that the issues had been discussed by lawyers from both sides on the "Today" programme, shortly before I had to respond to his comments. However, the hon. Gentleman, like the Countryside Alliance, likes to spread confusion. He should not be allowed to succeed.

Kate Hoey: I am sure that the Minister's contribution has clarified matters for everyone in the House, as his previous statements on the legislation have done. Does he agree that in a sense whatever the court or Parliament may say is irrelevant, as the Act as currently constituted is unworkable and will not bring an end to hunting?

Alun Michael: No, my hon. Friend is absolutely wrong. I am grateful to have the opportunity to contradict her in terms. The Act is workable and enforceable, and makes very clear what is banned and what people should not do because it is now illegal. Hunters are always described as normally law-abiding people. I hope that they will abide by the law.

Andrew George: It is important that the democratic will of the House is properly and rigorously defended by the Government. The Minister knows that a case was made at various stages of the Bill's progress for compensation for those whose livelihoods would be affected by the Act. As the Act is supposed to be implemented on 18 February, does he agree that if the Government had accepted compensatory measures—after all, it is an Act of Parliament, not an act of God, and livelihoods will be affected—the case for delay and the case being made by the Countryside Alliance would be considerably weakened?

Alun Michael: We do not accept that there is a case for compensation. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman and I have discussed that on a number of occasions. I have made my position clear. We do not believe that with commencement on 18 February, there is any justification for compensation. Our view is consistent with the view that was taken by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Incidentally, people often say that the Joint Committee on Human Rights found that there were flaws in the Act. It did not, and that has been made clear in the House. Nevertheless, people attempt to spread confusion about that, so I am glad to make it absolutely clear. We recognised that some people's employment would be affected, so the later date for commencement—we proposed July 2006, and the House agreed with that proposition—would have given everyone time to change their activities, take up drag hunting and consider other ways of ensuring that employment could continue through other equine activities, and so on, but the case against compensation remains strong, even with the date of 18 February. That is not the issue today. The question of a challenge is nothing to do with human rights or compensation. It is to do with whether the Parliament Act 1949 is valid. We believe that it is. We believe that the Hunting Act 2004 is valid and sound, and we will say that clearly in the courts, as we have said in the House. We are being entirely consistent, as always.

Paddy Tipping: Is not the sensible way forward for hunts to use whatever time is available to wind up their activities or make alternative provision in a thoughtful and sensible way?

Alun Michael: Yes, my hon. Friend is right. My advice to hunts—[Interruption.] I would advise hunts not to   consider that the challenge might succeed, but to undertake such actions as are necessary for them to comply with the Hunting Act 2004, as passed by the House.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It seems to be the practice that whenever the Minister gets up to speak, certain hon. Members try to talk him down and shout across the Chamber. I will not tolerate that.

Henry Bellingham: The Minister said a moment ago that the Countryside Alliance and its supporters in the Lords voted for an immediate ban. Which way did the Lord Chancellor vote?

Alun Michael: I am not sure what the relevance of the question is. It was the president of the Countryside Alliance who sought to frustrate the possibility of the House of Lords endorsing the date of July 2006 which was proposed by this House. The House has taken a clear and reasonable view. The Government have always sought to bring reason into a debate where reason is often in short supply. We continue to do so.

Tony Wright: On a previous occasion, I suggested to the Minister that whether the Act was good or bad for foxes, it would be certainly be good for lawyers. He rejected the suggestion at that time. Does not his statement today confirm it?

Alun Michael: No, it does not. It confirms what I said before. We have always known that the Countryside Alliance would make two challenges—one on the Parliament Act and the other on human rights issues, although it has not commenced any such action. The Countryside Alliance has made it clear for several years that that was its intention, so it should come as no surprise to anyone. We believe that the outcome will be clear and simple in both cases and that neither of the challenges will succeed, so I still say my hon. Friend is wrong.

Douglas Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman will doubtless remember the amendment on the Order Paper of 15 September in my name, which provided that if the legality of the Act should be challenged before the courts at its implementation date, the Act should not come into force until those proceedings had been disposed of. Would it not have been a great deal more transparent and, some might say, honest of the Government to have accepted that amendment, or at least its sense, rather than to embark on a wholly unprecedented device in order save their electoral bacon?

Alun Michael: No, that is a crazy approach. The right hon. and learned Gentleman suggests that we should anticipate challenges to legislation that has properly been put in place by the House. He may want to undermine the good law-making processes of the House, but I think it is for the House to pass legislation in a proper way and for the courts to do their job. Let us keep the two separate.

Gordon Prentice: Am I the only Labour Member to be fed up with the constant sniping by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) at the Front Bench? I take the view that the Hunting Act that was passed is good law and we should leave it to the courts to decide how it should be implemented.

Alun Michael: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. I would not criticise my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), because by raising the question he has enabled the House to clarify things and to give less excuse to those on the Opposition Benches and in the Countryside Alliance who want confusion to prevail—but I agree with my hon. Friend.

Lembit �pik: The Minister hopes for clarity on the law, and I agree. Can he confirm that after the date of commencement, whenever it turns out to be, exempt hunting, drag hunting, exercising hounds, chasing away, searching and unintentional hunting will continue to be legal?

Alun Michael: I can confirm that the Act bans only those things that it bans. What people ought to do is to look at the Act, the provisions of which are clear. We are doing all that we can to ensure that people have clear understanding of the legislation, which is quite a challenge given the amount of misinformation that has been put out by those who do not like the Act. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that the Act is much clearer than he seeks to imply.

John Redwood: What is the Minister's current forecast of the implementation date for the legislation, in the light of what he said in his statement about likely court proceedings and their timing? Will he assure his hon. Friends that he is desperately striving to get the Act implemented before the election?

Alun Michael: My current prediction on the date of implementation is 18 February. It will be a court decision, which I shall certainly not anticipate, as to whether there should be any delay to that commencement. We have already heard people say that there could be no delay because the legislation is clear and specific about the date of commencementthree months after Royal Assentbut that is a matter to be discussed if, as we anticipate, the case fails following the hearing of first instance and an application is made for an injunction. It will be for the court to decide, and I am happy to leave it to the court.

John Greenway: The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) is right in one thing: there have been two voices from the Government. First, there was a Bill that would have allowed hunting to continue under licence, and then there was a Government Bill to ban all hunting. That is what has exasperated my constituents. Given that they will lose their livelihood through this wretched measure, surely they should be permitted, without interference from the Government, to pursue all their entitlements through the courts in the proper way.

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman ought to explain to his constituents how reasonable the Government have been in trying to find a less divisive way through this most divisive of issues. That is why I brought proposals to the House, with the support of the Prime Minister, as has been made clear on many occasions. The House voted for a different piece of legislation. It amended the Bill that I introduced and voted in the same way as it has on 10 occasions over 10 years. I respect that; so should the hon. Gentleman, and so should his constituents.

Peter Luff: Does not the delay in implementation, at which I think the Minister has hinted today, give all those who are genuinely concerned about animal welfarethat includes the middle way group, which I think includes the Minister, although sadly not the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman)a genuine chance to look again at any new evidence that has emerged since the measure became an Act of Parliament? In that context, will the Minister give a commitment to meet the middle way group to discuss its report on the welfare aspects of shooting foxes, which has passed the peer group review process and is established scientific fact?

Alun Michael: May I clarify the point absolutely? I have given no hint of delay; I have simply acknowledged our understanding that an application for a delay in commencement may be made by the Countryside Alliance when it loses its case at the hearing of first instance. I have made it clear several times that we are content to leave the court to look at the issues and at what the Act says and to take a decision on such an application.
	The hon. Gentleman raised animal welfare issues. We are concerned about those issues, but it is important for those who support hunting to recognise that legislation is now in place and, even as they continue their challenge in the courtthe right place to do soto engage with animal welfare issues. It is for that reason that I shall seek to promote discussions, including animal welfare organisations and those involved in hunting activities, on issues relating to the welfare of horses and dogs that might arise from the implementation of the legislation, whether that is on 18 February, which is the working assumption with which we must stay, or whether there is a decision by the court that makes a difference to that expectation.

Edward Garnier: I agree with the Minister this far: about the only clear part of the Hunting Act is the clause on its implementation date. Does not he think it regrettable that the Attorney-General and No. 10 allowed themselves to be quoted in the media discussing the implementation question? Would not it have been better to leave that to private discussions between the respective lawyers and the courts?
	Did the Minister authorise the writing of the article in The Sunday Telegraph by his Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley), which seemed to counter, shall we say, some of the arguments that the Minister urgedin good faith, I am surewhen he was piloting the Bill through the House?

Alun Michael: First, the hon. and learned Gentleman, as a lawyer, should know that the whole Bill is clear. It makes very clear what is illegal following the date of commencement, and I hope that he and Opposition Members who have, in other circumstances, enjoined people to obey the law will encourage their constituents to obey the Hunting Act. The law is absolutely clear and the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) ought to read the Act and counsel his constituents to obey the law. I should be interested to know whether he still holds to his words about letting loose the dogs of war or whether he supports his other statements about people obeying the law. The Conservative party needs to be a little bit clearer than it has been up to now as to whether it is a law-abiding party.
	The second point raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman was on discussions between lawyers on the two sides. I heard the chairman of the Countryside Alliance refer to those discussions and the alliance appears to have made it clear that it would apply for an injunction in the event of its failing in the hearing of first instance.
	Finally, the hon. and learned Gentleman referred to an article in The Sunday Telegraph. Through the encouragement of some Opposition Members, I have received various pieces of correspondence from people who, like him, have clearly not read the interesting article written by my Parliamentary Private Secretary. I should be interested to receive comments and contributions from people who have actually read the article. I suggest that the hon. and learned Gentleman does sohe clearly has not done so as yet.

Guantanamo Bay

Jack Straw: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement concerning the return to the United Kingdom of the four British citizens detained at Guantanamo Bay.
	Let me first recall the context. The attacks of 11 September 2001 were the worst terrorist atrocity that the United States, the United Kingdom and the whole world have ever suffered. In response to those attacks, a coalition of countries came together to launch a military campaign against al-Qaeda and its Taliban supporters, to remove them from their strongholds in Afghanistan and elsewhere.
	In those operations, thousands of individuals believed to be al-Qaeda or Taliban fighters or their supporters were detained by coalition forces. The vast majority of those individuals were released, but those who were deemed to pose a substantial risk of returning to the conflict were sent by the United States to detention facilities at its naval base at Guantanamo Bay, there to be detained and questioned about their knowledge of al-Qaeda's activities. As a result, valuable information has been gained, which has helped to protect the international community from further al-Qaeda and related terrorist attacks.
	Approximately 200 individuals have been released from Guantanamo Bay since their original detention. However, the United States Government believe that a number of detainees so released have returned to terrorism, demonstrating the dilemma faced by the United States in considering such releases.
	Nine British citizens were among those originally detained at Guantanamo Bay. I and the Government as a whole have taken our consular responsibilities to those detained very seriously. British officials have visited them regularly, delivered messages and mail from their families and secured improvements in the physical conditions of their detention. I have made a written ministerial statement to the House following each of those visits.
	I have also set out to the House on many occasions the British Government's consistent position in relation to these detainees and their detention. As the House will recall, discussions took place in 2003, led by my noble and learned Friend the Attorney-General on the UK side. The Government then requested the return of all of the British detainees held at Guantanamo Bay.
	Five of the nine detainees were returned to the United Kingdom last March. In announcing their return to the House on 24 February last year, I said that the Government would continue to work to resolve the position of the remaining four British detainees: Feroz Abbasi, Moazzam Begg, Jamaal Belmar and Martin Mubanga. Since last March, the Government have been in regular discussion with the United States authorities about this. Foreign Office Ministers and I have also held a number of meetings with the families and lawyers of the four men and with their Members of Parliament, and officials have been in regular contact with them.
	Following contact between the United Kingdom and the United Statesinvolving, in particular, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and his officeand between United States Secretary of State Colin Powell and myself, the United States Government have now agreed to the return of all four men to the United Kingdom. That decision follows intensive and complex discussions to address United States security concerns. All the families have been informed of that decision this morning, as have their Members of Parliament.
	The four men will be returned in the next few weeks. Once they are back in the United Kingdom, the police will consider whether to arrest them under the Terrorism Act 2000 for questioning in connection with possible terrorist activity. Any subsequent action will be a matter for the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. The House will understand that it would therefore not be right for me to comment further on that aspect of the matter.
	I should like to assure the House that every practical step will be taken by the relevant United Kingdom authorities to maintain national security and to protect public safety. Throughout the period of detention of British nationals in Guantanamo Bay, the Government have sought to balance the need to safeguard the interests of Britons detained overseas with our duty to meet the threat from international terrorism.
	Terrorism is opposed to the values of every faith and religion, and seeks to deny the most basic of human rightsthe right to life, to security and to go about our daily business free from harm. Working with our allies, we will continue resolutely to defend those rights through a robust and determined approach to combating terrorism and its networks of support wherever these are found.

Michael Ancram: I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of this statement.
	I welcome the announcement of the return of those four British citizens. The Opposition have unremittingly supported the fight against terrorism, but equally, we have always believed that such a fight must be conducted within the rule of law. We have for some time expressed reservations about detention without due process or trial at Guantanamo Bayreservations recently given even stronger expression by the United States Supreme Court.
	Although those are the last of the British citizens being held at Guantanamo Bay, our reservations in principle remain, as they involve a strong ally with whom we are rightly continuing to work closely in Iraq and Afghanistan. In that regard, while fully accepting the United States dilemma to which the Foreign Secretary referred, what further representations will he make to our American allies about the process of detention at Guantanamo Bay?
	My general welcome of this announcement still leaves serious questions to be answered. Given our concern that justice by due process is done in relation to those four, what assurances can the Foreign Secretary give that they will be subjected to normal due process in this country on their return?
	The British public must be protected from terrorists. Is the Foreign Secretary satisfied in general on the information available to him that, on their return, those four will not pose a threat to the security of this country or its citizens? What assurances can he give that the protection of British citizens from the threat of terrorism will not in any way be undermined by the release, as opposed to the return, of those four men?
	Those men were taken into custody by United States forces in the chaotic circumstances of post-Taliban Afghanistan and near the notoriously unpoliceable Afghanistan-Pakistan border. Has the Foreign Secretary established to his satisfaction the circumstances in which those four were originally apprehended?
	The detention facility at Guantanamo Bay did not just raise serious concerns at the process by which people were detained there. Serious questions have also been raised about the treatment of detainees. For instance, one of them, Moazzam Begg, alleges that he was the victim of torture. Obviously, that is a most serious allegation. Can the Foreign Secretary confirm whether the detainees will be asked not only about any allegation against them, but about the conditions that they underwent at Guantanamo Bay?
	Does the return of those four bring with it any assurance that no British citizen will in future be held in Guantanamo Bay or in similar circumstances elsewhere without due process? Indeed, will the Foreign Secretary assure us that there are currently no further British citizens being held anywhere else in similar circumstances?
	Winning the fight against terrorism requires us to win too, the fight for hearts and minds, both in Britain and in the Muslim world. In the struggle against terrorists, the balance between security and liberty is notoriously difficult to strike. The first duty of the Government is to defend their people, but was not the late United States President Eisenhower right to warn:
	We must not destroy what we are attempting to defend?

Jack Straw: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the welcome that he has given to the release of those four gentlemen. Let me try to deal with his points in turn. We have an immediate locus in so far as our consular duties are concerned in respect of British citizens. With their return to the United Kingdom, representations about the specific conditions at Guantanamo Bay in respect of the British citizens will obviously come to an end. However, as members of the international community and signatories to various international conventions, we remain concerned about the conditions in which individuals have been, and continue to be, held there, and within that context, we will continue to make representations about them.
	The right hon. and learned Gentleman asks whether normal due process will apply to those individuals when they return. Yes, of course, and I made that clear. He asks whether I can guarantee that those individuals do not pose a threat to the security of the United Kingdom. We have in place strengthened anti-terrorist legislation, including the Terrorism Act 2000 and the 2001 legislation. Those laws exist to ensure that those who pose a threat to the security of the United Kingdom are dealt with effectively. I will certainly not prejudge the guilt of any individual in advance of investigation by the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the other appropriate authorities.
	The right hon. and learned Gentleman asks about the allegations of mistreatment made by Moazzam Begg in particular. I am aware of those allegations, and I have already received oral representations about them by his family and his lawyers. We are pursuing those allegations with the United States authorities, and we will continue to do so. British consular officials visited the detainees on nine separate occasions in very difficult circumstances. It is fair to say that our officials, on my behalf, gave the British detainees a higher level of consular representation than did the foreign Governments of any other nationals who were held at Guantanamo Bay.
	The right hon. and learned Gentleman finally asks whether I can be satisfied that no British citizen is held in any similar circumstance. The answer is that it is almost impossible to prove a negative, but I know of no other British citizen held at Guantanamo Bay in those circumstances; neither do I expect that any will be dispatched there.

Menzies Campbell: It appears that these men are about to be rescued from what has effectively been a legal no-man's land, and it would be churlish not to welcome that, but a number of questions remain. Why has it taken so long? What undertakings, if any, have been given to the United States Government about the way in which the men are to be treated once they return to the United Kingdom? What do the Government understand to be the state of health, both mental and physical, of these men?
	Whatever the context, the truth is that the detention of these men violated all legal principle. Their civil rights were systematically and deliberately abused, and they were denied due process, a cornerstone of American legal jurisprudence. Has not this been a damaging episode which should never again be repeated?

Jack Straw: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his welcome for the announcement. I understand the concerns that he expressed so eloquently. It is important to understand the grave anxieties that arose in the United States following the 11 September atrocities, which was the first time that an attack by foreigners had taken place on its mainland in at least living memory. It produced the largest single set of casualties on the mainland since the American civil war. It has to be understood what a trauma the United States faced. There is no point dismissing that. It is a fact. The decisions that it made have to be seen in that context.
	The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked why it has taken so long. It has taken this long to hold intensive discussions on the need for the United States to release the men and to recognise that they would be subject to our law, agreed by this Parliament, and no other law. That is what has happened. No side undertakings, which I think was in his mind, have been given to the US Government about how they will or will not be treated. They will be treated in accordance with the law. As happened with the five who were released last March, and as I said in my statement, it will be a matter for the police acting under the powers of the Terrorism Act 2000 to consider whether to interview them and detain them when they arrive in the UK, and a matter for the Crown Prosecution Service to take any action following on from that.
	On the men's state of health, consular officials who visited them gave their own, but necessarily superficial and unqualified, assessment of the state of their physical health. It appeared to be reasonable, but that does not amount to a qualified assessment of the state of their physical, mental or psychological health. That will be a matter for them and their medical advisers.

Donald Anderson: The House will understand the dilemma posed by my right hon. Friend, but he must surely agree that the Guantanamo Bay saga has been very damaging to the image of the west and reduces our moral authority in the world. Will any allegations made by those who are to be released, together with those in the dossier published last August in respect of the other five, be strenuously pursued by my right hon. Friend? Will he also confirm that our concern extends beyond our nationals to the principle of detention in Guantanamo Bay in general? How do the Government view the proposals of the US Government either to set up a special prison, Camp Six, within Guantanamo Bay, where people can be held without trial indefinitely, or to hold those people in prisons within their countries of origin?

Jack Straw: Any allegations that the gentlemen make will be pursued vigorously. Indeed, we are already pursuing some allegations in advance of their release. I think I answered the question about whether our concern extends beyond our nationals held in Guantanamo Bay. The answer is yes, but obviously the context in which we can make representations is different. We can only do that in respect of individuals if they are British citizens.
	On the process that the US Government have established, it was as a direct result of representations by us on two of the four detainees that they abandoned their efforts to take those individuals before the military tribunals, which we regarded as flawed in process. On the establishment of the special prisons, I have only seen the newspaper reports on that. It is a matter for the US Government. They will have to make the decisions and be answerable for them.

Hugo Swire: The Foreign Secretary said that he was not aware of other British citizens held in similar circumstances in Guantanamo Bay. My right hon. and learned Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary asked whether he was aware of British citizens held elsewhere in similar circumstances. Will he answer the question?

Jack Straw: I am aware of some British citizens detained elsewhere. I am not aware of British citizens detained in similar circumstances. That is the answer to the question.

Tony Lloyd: Although I, like others, welcome the release of the men from Guantanamo Bay, the episode is nevertheless a dark stain on the reputation of the United States and has damaged our country's reputation throughout the world, particularly among Muslim nations.
	My constituent, Jamal al-Harith, who was released last March, tells me that he has not been interviewed by the police since he arrived in Britain. He has certainly not been interviewed by Foreign Office officials or other domestic officers about the treatment he received in Guantanamo Bay; nor has there been an assessment of his mental or physical state of health. That is wrong. I would be grateful if my right hon. Friend could dwell on that. If we are to establish the facts that took place with respect to the four, it is important that proper interviewing takes place, including retrospective interviewing of my constituent.

Jack Straw: My understanding is that each of the five who returned last March was interviewed by the police on arrival. I am as certain as I can be that that was the case. Police liaison officers were appointed for each of them.
	As to whether we should proactively interview them about wider issues, it is normal for individuals who have complaints about treatment abroad to make those known to us, not directly, but through their Members of Parliament or solicitors. At that stage, we investigate them. It is my long experience that individuals are never slow in coming forward to make representations and we are always speedy and efficient in investigating them. It goes without saying that if my hon. Friend, the individual or his solicitor have concerns about his treatment which the individual thinks have not been made known to the British Government, we are happy to receive those representations. By definition, the concerns have to be initiated by the individual. We cannot second-guess his experiences.

John Gummer: Does the Secretary of State accept that the very long time it has taken to get the United States to accept what surely ought to have been a natural reaction to representations by what has been her closest allyeven though many of us are unhappy about what we have donecasts doubt on the nature of the alliance? It is therefore important that he accepts the task of encouraging, pressing and pushing the United States to change its attitude to the kind of detention that has taken place in Guantanamo Bay. Its attitude damages the fight against terrorism because we have adopted there, as I believe we are adopting here, the very attitudes to human rights that we are trying to stop others removing.

Jack Straw: Our position was different from that of the United States Government all the way through, and I set it out in the House on 24 February 2005, when I said that our overall position remained that the detainees should either be tried in accordance with international standards or returned to the United Kingdom. I do not think that the fact of Guantanamo Bay, difficult as it has been, casts doubt on the nature of the alliance. Indeed, had it not been for the nature of our alliance with the United States, we would not have got those nine detainees back. The issue of liberty and order and the way in which we deal with it is raised in its most acute form at times of war and terrorism. It is easy to defend ordinary human rights when the most important onethe right to lifeis not under attack. When it is under attack, that defence becomes much more difficult.
	I fully subscribe to the right hon. Gentleman's implication that we should never stoop to the level of the terrorists. However, it is accepted in the language of the European convention on human rights, many other international conventions and our own practice in the United Kingdom that when that most basic right, the right to life, is under attack, democratic liberal Governments are entitled to take action which, in normal circumstances, they would not be entitled to take, to defend it, as without it all other human rights become completely nugatory.

Karen Buck: May I welcome the decision to release my constituent, Richard Belmar, who has been detained for three years without charge? I welcome the continued work behind the scenes by the Attorney-General and the Foreign Office while deploring the time that it has taken for the United States Government to respond. Many of my constituents, especially, but by no means exclusively, my Muslim constituents, have expressed the gravest concern about the suspension of due legal process. Without doubt, the existence of Guantanamo Bay has created perceptions in the Muslim community that due process does not apply equally to Muslims and non-Muslims. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that he will pursue a three-track strategy of providing proper support to the family of my constituent; ensuring that due process is followed in the event of any charges or investigation; and doing everything possible to assure my constituents that public safety remains paramount?

Jack Straw: I thank my hon. Friend for her remarks. As with other hon. Members, she has been assiduous and tenacious in her representations on behalf of her constituent who was detained. On the issue of proper support for the family, most of that will be provided locally rather than nationally, but if there are issues of concern, I am happy to meet her to discuss them. The answer to both her second and third points is yes.

Sarah Teather: The news of Martin Mubanga's release is obviously hugely welcome for his family in my constituency, and I thank the Foreign Secretary for giving me advance notice of his statement. This morning, I spoke to Martin's family, who are relieved but also cautious. They are hardened, having steeled themselves for two or three years for bad news. They are unsure about how Martin will be on his return, given his allegations about torture and mistreatment while in Guantanamo Bay. However, there is not any news of my other constituent, Jamil el-Banna, a Jordanian refugee who is a long-time British resident. What efforts are being made to secure his release, and will the Foreign Secretary confirm that the Government will not seek to revoke his refugee status, as previously suggested by Ministers in the other place?

Jack Straw: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her remarks. I understand the caution of Martin Mubanga's family, who are bound to be worried until each of those individuals is on British soil and back with their families. I hope, however, that that will be in the very near future. I am happy to receive any representations that the hon. Lady and the family wish to make.
	As for Mr. el-Banna, the House will be aware that in international law we only have the standing to take up consular matters in respect of British citizens. That is a fact of international law, and it applies to citizens and nationals of all third countries. It means that we cannot make representations on behalf of people, however long they have been resident in the UK, who are not our nationals. More to the point, the US Government, consistent with their obligations under international law, would not accept such representations. I know that that is frustrating, and I have seen the families of a number of people in that position, but that is the situation. On the issue of that gentleman's refugee status, I am afraid that I know nothing whatever about it and, in any event, it is not a matter for me but for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Geraint Davies: I warmly welcome the statement by right hon. Friend on behalf of the family of Feroz Abbasi, who feared that he might be incarcerated in perpetuity without charge in Guantanamo Bay. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, as the standard bearers of peace, democracy and justice, we will continue to fight for the rights of individuals to fair trial and fair treatment, whether in Guantanamo Bay or anywhere else in the world? Given the mental stress that the detainees have suffered for three years, will he ensure that there is a full evaluation of their mental health, and ensure that appropriate medical and financial support is provided for their rehabilitation? Can he reassure the British public that every effort will be made in future to protect both their security and their right to a fair trial, whether in Britain or abroad?

Jack Straw: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. He, too, has been assiduous and tenacious in his representations on behalf of his detained constituent, Mr. Abbasi. On the issue of support, most of it, such as medical services, will be the responsibility of local medical authorities and local authorities. Our aim, not only in law but in respect of services to which those individuals are entitled, is that they should receive the same services as any other British citizen. Given the special circumstances of their detention of up to three years, I am happy to receive representations from my hon. Friend and to follow them up. On his final point, it has been difficult seeking to balance the security of the international community and this country with the rights of those individuals, but I have always believed that the approach of the British Government is the right one.

Douglas Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman knows that I have pressed him many times in the House about the illegality of what the United States has done. Assuming that none of the nine is charged before a British court, would it not be right for the British Government to press the United States to compensate them for clearly illegal action? Would he also ask the prosecution authorities in this country to reflect before they prosecute any of the nine? If any of them were convicted and sent to prison, they would not get any credit for the time that they have been held unlawfully in Guantanamo Bay.

Jack Straw: On the issue of compensation, if we receive representations, we will consider them, just as we do for other British citizens, and follow them up. If those people were subject to trial in this country and conviction led to their detention in prison, the question of whether they could be given credit for their previous detention would not be a matter for me but for the learned judge in the case. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows better than I the way in which that system operates.

Adrian Bailey: May I welcome the Minister's statement, and acknowledge the role that the Foreign Office played in securing the release of the three detainees from Tipton last year? Subsequently, however, those three and others have made allegations of torture and ill-treatment in Guantanamo Bay. Their perception is that the Foreign Office is not listening to them, so will the Minister give an undertaking that if they wish to present their allegations to him, he will meet them and, if necessary, make representations to the US Government?

Jack Straw: First, the Foreign Office does listen to representations. A significant part of its job is making representations on behalf of British citizens who face consular difficulties, small and large. Secondly, I am happy to see my hon. Friend and the families concerned if there is timeif not, I will ask another Minister to do soand if appropriate.

Edward Davey: My constituent, Bisher Al-Rawi, was arrested on a legitimate business trip to the Gambia and has been illegally incarcerated for more than two years. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather), the Foreign Secretary said that he cannot make representations on behalf of people such as Bisher, who is not a British national but who has permanent residency rights in the UK. In the past, however, he and his officials have implied that the FCO is prepared to ask questions. That being the case, does he know whether the Americans plan to release people such as Bisher? If so, will he undertake to seek Bisher's release to the UK to face charges, if there is any evidence against Bisher?

Jack Straw: I saw the hon. Gentleman and the family concerned. In that case, although the gentleman lived in the UK for many years and would be entitled to British citizenship, he voluntarily chose not to seek British citizenship and to maintain his Iraqi citizenship, although other members of his family chose to become British citizens. That situation creates a dilemma, and people must make a choice. We can represent British citizens, including those who are well qualified for British citizenship and who acquire British citizenship after birth. We cannot represent those who choose not to seek British citizenship and who make their own choices, presumably because they want to maintain the citizenship of their birth. That is the law of the land, and it is the law of the international community.
	I went to the trouble of seeing the hon. Gentleman and the family and gave them a lot of time. Other Ministers and I continue to be available to meet hon. Members and families, whether the matter concerns British citizens or others, but the degree to which we can make representations in respect of individual cases is limited. We will continue to test the envelope on behalf of the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members and their constituents. However, I do not want to raise hopes in cases in which the circumstances are very difficult.

Keith Vaz: I congratulate my right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General on their workthey have given us excellent news in advance of Eid celebrations, which will take place next week. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that if the detainees were subsequently to decide to pursue an action against the United States of America, Sir David Manning and his officials in Washington would give them and their legal representatives every possible support?

Jack Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. If actions were taken against the US Government in the US, we would consider any representations, but we cannot make such decisions in advance.

Alex Salmond: Given that a Law Lord has described Guantanamo Bay as a position of utter lawlessness, will the welcome return of the four individuals under the rule of law bring about in a change in the Government's attitude to those detained without trial or charge in Belmarsh prison?

Jack Straw: The position of those in Belmarsh is and always has been completely different from that of those detained in Guantanamo Bay, and it is ludicrous to compare either the conditions or the nature of the detention. The position of those held in Belmarsh is controversial, and it was at the heart of their lordships' decision. However, it is a fact that the individuals held in Belmarsh can leave the United Kingdom, if they can find another country to take them. That facility was never available to anyone in Guantanamo Bay, which all nine individuals would have left if the same arrangements had been in place. It is ludicrous to make any comparison whatsoever.
	My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is actively considering the future of detentions under part 4 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, and he will make a statement as soon as he can.

Gordon Prentice: A few moments ago, my right hon. Friend said that he would consider applications for compensation. Will the Government consider making ex gratia payments, provided that those individuals are not charged by the police in this country for offences under the terrorism Acts? It seems to me that those individuals will live under a cloud and will be virtually unemployable.

Jack Straw: We consider representations in respect of applications before the US courts. In this country, however, ex gratia payments are made by the British taxpayer in respect of unlawful detention by Her Majesty's Government. Those detentions were neither made nor approved by Her Majesty's Government, so the question of ex gratia payments does not arise.

John Redwood: How can it be that there is enough evidence to detain five people for many months, but not enough evidence to bring any case against them under the terrorism Acts or other criminal legislation? Were the detentions mistaken, or does our terrorism legislation miss some important points and need to be strengthened?

Jack Straw: There is a world of difference between the criteria adopted by the US Government to detain those individuals, most of whom were captured either near or at the face of terrorist action or training, and the evidence that British courts properly require to ensure detention following conviction, or even detention under part 4 of the 2001 Act.

Tam Dalyell: In 43 years of listening to ministerial statements, I have scarcely heard a senior Minister having to defend what is frankly indefensible. What does that say about the cavalier attitude of recent Republican Administrations in the United States to both human rights and international law? What are the Government going do about this situation: discussions about assassination squads, possibly operating across international borders, are really going on in Washington, and the presence of assassination squads has been made more likely by the appointment of Mr. Negroponte in Baghdad? Does the Foreign Secretary remember what we all said in the 1980s about Negroponte's behaviour in central America?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. With his long experience, the hon. Gentleman knows that he is trespassing outside the scope of the statement. He sought to table an urgent question, which was refused, and it is therefore unfair to attempt to raise the issue in a question to the Foreign Secretary now.

Jack Straw: I am delighted to see my hon. Friend back in his place after his absence. He must make his own judgment about the circumstances in which I am making this statement. In the 26 years in which I have been in this House, however, I have heard some statements that compare with the one that I have just made. [Laughter.] The US Government must defend their own decisions. However, we are allies of the United States, so I shall offer an explanation of why they have come to those decisions and put the matter in context.
	Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister dealt with the issue of assassination squads in a slightly less well-publicised meeting than thisthe cameras were not there and the journalists were outside. He said that we have seen no evidence whatsoever that the United States has employed assassination squads in Iraq, which we would not approve of. I happen to knowhere I am defending as well as explainingAmbassador John Negroponte, whom I regard as an international diplomat of the highest standing and integrity, and I am happy to defend that position against all comers.

John Wilkinson: The Foreign Secretary knows that many thousands of Commonwealth nationals are ordinarily resident in this country, where, to all intents and purposes, they enjoy the rights of British citizens, in as much as they can vote and join the armed forces, police and civil service. Is he aware of any such individuals who are still in detention in Guantanamo Bay, and if so, how many? Finally, he drew a distinction between two of the four detainees to be returned. Were some of the detainees engaged in activities that would have led to their being taken prisoner of war in a declared state of war?

Jack Straw: On the last point, the answer is for some, yes, and for some, no. The international conventions on the treatment of prisoners of warthe Geneva conventionswere designed before we faced the threat of international terrorism and failing states, so the instruments have not quite caught up with the new reality.
	On the number of people detained, let me say, as there is obviously some suspicion that British citizens might be detained elsewhere, that I am absolutely certain that none is detained in Guantanamo Bay, and I know of no citizens detained in similar circumstances elsewhere. However, I am happy to follow that up for the benefit of the House to ensure that if there is any difference between what I recollect and the truth, a written ministerial statement will quickly be made to the House.
	There will be some Commonwealth citizens detained in Guantanamo Bayincluding citizens of Pakistan, for exampleas well as some people who have a right to indefinite residence in this country. I cannot, from this Dispatch Box, give an estimate of the numbers, but I can tell the House that one detainee who is a citizen of Australia was today released to the Australians by the United States Government.

Ross Cranston: I congratulate my right hon. Friend, who is right to put the issue in context. He mentioned the work of the Attorney-General, and I am sure that many of us at this end of the building would like to commend the work of our right hon. and learned Friend in securing this result.
	Will the Government continue to insist that unless the United States applies international legal standards, in terms of detention and trial, whenever it detains Britons, the Government will continue to insist that they must ultimately be returned to this country to be dealt with?

Jack Straw: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. His commendation of the indefatigable work of our right hon. and learned Friend Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney-General, is entirely well placed, as he has pursued this matter tirelessly.
	Our position is always clear, and it is based on the principle that where people are detained they should either be tried in accordance with internationally accepted standards of justice or released to the United Kingdom. That is a clear principle that applies to every British citizen wherever he is potentially detained.

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I want to call everyone who is seeking to catch my eye, but there is other important business to come. I appeal to hon. Members to make their questions brief and to the Foreign Secretary to keep his answers brief.

Edward Garnier: Following the Foreign Secretary's last answer, is it his case that the nine people detained in Guantanamo Bay were detained lawfully or unlawfully?

Jack Straw: That is a matter finally to be sorted out before the United States Supreme Court.

Alice Mahon: By any measure, this has been a hideous abuse of human rights and international law. In the context of the special relationship, if it has taken us three years to get our citizens, what hope does the Foreign Secretary have for those of other countries; and will he condemn what has happened in Guantanamo Bay?

Jack Straw: My reaction is a little differentI am pleased that at long last we have managed to secure the release of the nine British detainees. We do not approve of the circumstances of their detention, but it is important that we understand why the United States Government felt it necessary to make the detentions.

Simon Hughes: Given that the Foreign Office rightly promotes democracy and human rights abroad all the time, what will the Foreign Secretary now do to ensure that in future nobody in Britain or among any of our democratic allies is held without charge or without conviction?

Jack Straw: Our record on human rights is a very good one, and we will continue to pursue, with our close allies and everyone else in the international community, the need to ensure that all signatories to the human rights conventions apply them in practice as well as in theory.

Vera Baird: Is it not necessary to emphasise the fact that the real hero of the hour is the Attorney-General? He faced considerable personal public criticism last year when, after the US Government had made the offer that, once tried by some sort of tribunal, the men could serve their sentences here, he had the moral courage in the face of that criticism to say that those tribunals would not give men a fair trial, and that even on those terms he would not agree to their being tried unfairly. Is not he to be congratulated on that stand? Clearly, these men must now be investigated here.
	May I just say, very quickly, that this surely shows two things

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Jack Straw: I endorse my hon. and learned Friend's commendation.

John Bercow: Abuse of power by Governments to the detriment of individuals must surely carry a greater consequence than simple loss of face or damage to reputation. Pursuant to the points very wisely raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) and the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), would not it send an invaluable signal if the Foreign Secretary, instead of simply saying, If people come to us about compensation we will follow it up, he said, There is no reason in principle why they should not receive compensation and every reason why they should?

Jack Straw: The answer is that compensation has to be a matter that is considered within United States and international law, not our own domestic law, so there is no point in my holding out hope that could then be dashed.
	On representations, most of these individuals are already in touch with us through their lawyers and Members of Parliament, and I am sure that they all will beby the end of the day, probably.

David Winnick: Would not it be useful for the British Government to say to the American authorities that those of us who are totally opposed to terrorism in all its forms and have the utmost sympathy and solidarity over 9/11 feel only contempt for the way in which detaineesnot only the British oneshave been held in Guantanamo Bay, which is a perversion of justice in every form and plays right into the hands of the terrorist networks? Would not it be useful to be frank and forthright over this?

Jack Straw: I think that the United States Government are very well aware of the strength of feeling across the United Kingdom and across this House. I believe that that is one of the factors that have led to the release of these men.

Patrick Cormack: Bearing it in mind that there will be times in the future, as in the past, when it will be necessary for the greater safety of the greater number to detain people, should not we concentrate on the conditions of detention; and is not that the thing that we most deplore?

Jack Straw: We have to concentrate both on the circumstances and legality of detention, but certainly on the conditions of detention where it is lawful.

Roger Godsiff: I welcome the fact that my constituent, Moazzam Begg, is now being returned to his family after three years of incarceration and that the Foreign Secretary says that due process of law will now prevail. However, mindful of the fact that the five detainees who previously came back have not been charged, if no charges are laid against the four people who are returning, including Mr. Begg, how will he find out what the basis of his detainment was; and how will he be able to clear his name, or will he for ever be viewed as a potential international terrorist?

Jack Straw: My hon. Friend's question prompts in turn several questions that I cannot answer at the moment. Our process is, by definition, different from that of the United States: that is one of the reasons why we objected to the circumstances of the detentions. All I can say, as I have said repeatedly to the House and to my hon. FriendI am grateful to him for his thanksis that we will actively consider any representations that are made to us.

Northern Ireland

Paul Murphy: With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to make a statement on Northern Ireland.
	As the House will be aware, a major robbery took place at the Northern bank in Belfast just before Christmas. At the end of last week, the Chief Constable of Northern Ireland indicated that in his professional opinion responsibility for the robbery should be attributed to the Provisional IRA. He also made the point that quite apart from the massive scale of the robberymore than 26 millionit was in no sense a victimless crime. Two families were kidnapped and threatened with death if they did not co-operate with the criminals. In the case of one of the families, the gang, masquerading as police officers, tricked their way into the house by claiming that a family member had been killed in a car accident. Once inside, they donned masks, produced guns and threatened the family. One of the hostages was later taken to an isolated forest where her car was burned and she was abandoned in the snow. She was forced to struggle in severe weather and in darkness across country to seek assistance in a highly distressed state and suffering from hypothermia. I want to reiterate my utter condemnation of those who planned and carried out that appalling crime.
	The Chief Constable's public remarks were necessarily constrained by the ongoing investigation. He has briefed me fully on the background which led him to make the statement that he made. I have no doubt that the Chief Constable's opinion is well founded. He did not rush to judgment. The Police Service of Northern Ireland thought initially that five groups could have been responsible for the robbery. Only when a great deal of evidence had been sifted did the Chief Constable make his statement. He is a man of the highest calibre and integrity, leading a professional team of officers acting entirely independently and objectively in pursuit of the criminals concerned. The Irish Government have also made their views on that aspect of the matter entirely clear. There will of course be a further dispassionate assessment of the position when the Independent Monitoring Commission makes its next report. I shall discuss with the Irish Government the time scale in which that report should be made.
	On the immediate follow-up to the robbery, I welcome the announcement by the Northern bank of its intention to withdraw from circulation its current bank notes and replace them with notes of a different design and colour. That decision will reduce materially the value of the robbery to the perpetrators and we will discuss with the bank how best to publicise the detailed arrangements.
	Since the Chief Constable's statement, there has been much comment about the impact of the developments on the political process in Northern Ireland. I cannot hide my own judgment that it is deeply damaging.
	On 9 December, I came to the House to report on the proposals by the British and Irish Governments for a comprehensive agreement, which had been published the previous day. They represented a series of statements that would have been made if there had been an overall agreement at that stage. They included a statement to the effect that paramilitary activity by the Provisional IRA would cease immediately and definitively. There was also a statement, to which the Democratic Unionist party was committed, that after a period during which the good faith of the Provisional IRA's commitments had been demonstrated, an inclusive power-sharing Executive would be re-established in March this year. I need hardly remind hon. Members that that would have been nearly two and a half years after the devolved institutions in Northern Ireland were suspended.
	In the event, an outstanding issue, in relation to the transparency of the decommissioning process, could not be resolved. However, as I said to the House in December, we had made significant and substantial progress, not least in rebuilding the trust and confidence that is the essential requirement of a stable, inclusive, cross-community, devolved Administration in Northern Ireland.
	Today, I deeply regret that that progress has been put in jeopardy. I cannot forecast with certainty when it will prove possible to re-establish an inclusive power-sharing Executive, which the Government continue to believe provides the best long-term guarantee of peace and stability. We shall not abandon our commitment to that ultimate goal.
	We are in no doubt, however, that it can be achieved only if the Provisional IRA gives up not only terrorism but all the other forms of criminality in which it is implicated. Unionists in Northern Ireland have made clear that if those tests are met, they will work with Sinn Fein in a power-sharing Executive. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said repeatedly, it is entirely reasonable for Unionists to withhold their co-operation until those tests are met. We have consistently made it clear that, if a political settlement is to be achieved, any illegal activity has to come to an end. The documents published before Christmas were unambiguous on that point.
	Let me reiterate to the House that the Government will not promote a political settlement in which a party inextricably linked to an organisation that has carried out major criminal acts can assume responsibilities again in a devolved Administration. Nor could it take on the further responsibilities implied by the devolution of justice and policing while criminal activity of the kind we have just seen, and the capacity to plan and undertake such activity, continues to exist. It would be ludicrous for anyone to suggest that the people of Northern Ireland, from whatever background, voted for a political settlement on that basis in the referendum in 1998.
	Against that background, it is clear to me that decisions and responses on that are now needed from Sinn Fein and the Provisional IRA. The comments from the Irish Government in recent days indicate that they share that view.
	Without the required responses from Sinn Fein and the Provisional IRA, I cannot see how we can reinvigorate the political talks that must precede a comprehensive settlement. Without those responses, the Governments and, indeed, the House, will need to consider how best in the changed circumstances to bring pressure to bear on the republican movement to complete the transition to exclusively peaceful and democratic means, including any penalties that might be applied to Sinn Fein.
	I spoke to the Irish Foreign Minister on Friday and will meet him when he returns from a visit to the tsunami-stricken areas of Asia. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will meet the Taoiseach towards the end of the month. In the meantime, I expect to talk to the Northern Ireland parties over the next two weeks with a view to hearing first hand their assessments of the current position and their views on several difficult questions that now face us, including, for example, the appropriateness of continuing to pay the salaries and allowances of the individuals elected to the Northern Ireland Assembly in November 2003 and our proposed way forward on the regulation of donations to political parties in Northern Ireland.
	I cannot disguise my deep disappointment at what has happened, but my disappointment is as nothing compared with that of the people of Northern Ireland. They deserve better, given the progress in so many areas of their lives in recent years. The Government, continuing to work in close partnership with the Irish Government, will do everything they can to ensure that that progress is not lost and that we can continue to move forward as soon as possible to a comprehensive political settlement. In the meantime, my colleagues and I will continue to apply ourselves to governing Northern Ireland as effectively as possible in the absence of a devolved Administration.

David Lidington: First, I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and his customary courtesy in letting me see an advance copy.
	The right hon. Gentleman rightly drew attention to the viciousness of the crime. I want to start by expressing our sympathy for the families who were the victims of those brutal acts.
	The robbery and the Chief Constable's words last week have grave implications for the entire political process in Northern Ireland. The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have frequently saidthe Secretary of State did so again this afternoonthat Sinn Fein and the IRA are inextricably linked. The Independent Monitoring Commission's conclusions supported that assessment. In those circumstances, surely no Unionist or, for that matter, nationalist politician should be asked to share power with a party that remains inextricably linked to a violent criminal gang.
	We cannot move towards the devolution of powers over policing and criminal justice until we can be confident that every party with Ministers in a devolved Executive is committed to supporting the police and the rule of law rather than to undermining them.
	Will the Secretary of State today accept something that he has avoided accepting up to now, namely, that the same principles should now apply in Belfast and in Dublin, and that Sinn Fein cannot take part in a coalition or power-sharing Administration until it has permanently ended its connections to paramilitary bodies and to organised crime? I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it would be in everyone's interests if the republican movement now rapidly completed its transition from terrorism to exclusively peaceful and democratic politics. The sad truth, however, is that the events of recent days have shown that we seem to be a long way from achieving that objective. What, therefore, do the Government plan to do now?
	As far back as 7 September last year, the Prime Minister said that if the Leeds Castle talks failed to achieve a comprehensive settlement,
	then I think we've got to look for another way forward.
	What is that other way forward that the Prime Minister and the Government envisaged? Will the Government now explore the possibility of establishing a power-sharing Executive who exclude Sinn Fein? Or, if that is unattainable, will the Minister consider ways of making direct-rule Ministers more accountable to the people of Northern Ireland?
	The Secretary of State mentioned sanctions against Sinn Fein, and I would like to ask him three specific questions on that issue. First, in the light of the intelligence to which he and the police now have access, will he consider recalling individual prisoners who have been released early on licence under the Government's early-release scheme? Secondly, given the widespread belief that the profits of crime are helping to fund political parties linked to paramilitary forces, will he look again at some of the exemptions that parties in Northern Ireland have from the normal rules on party funding, especially those relating to foreign donations and to publishing accounts? I note that he said that he would be discussing this matter with the Irish Foreign Minister soon. In the light of those discussions, will the Secretary of State undertake to drop, or at least postpone, proceedings on the statutory instrument to extend the current exemptions, which the Government tabled shortly before Christmas? Thirdly, will the Government now introduce a motion to suspend the privileges and parliamentary allowances that have been given to Sinn Fein Members of this House despite their refusal to take their seats and represent their constituents properly? It is intolerable for taxpayers' money to be doled out in this way to a party that remains inextricably linked to violent organised crime.
	Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an unequivocal assurance that the police, customs and every other law enforcement agency in Northern Ireland will be unrelenting in pursing not only the people responsible for this appalling robbery but all members of the mafia gangs, republican or loyalist, that prey on the people of Northern Ireland; and that the agencies of law and order will take that action regardless of any political difficulties that it might cause in any quarter?

Paul Murphy: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments on the process. I agree with him that the impact of these events is deeply worrying and serious. I shall try to answer his individual questions one by one. He asked whether the principles that apply to a Government in Dublin should apply to a power-sharing Executive; I am sure that that is the case. I have already said that the Government will not tolerate any form of criminality associated with a group that is associated with a political party in Northern Ireland. Perhaps more significantly, however, the political parties in Northern Ireland take a very strong view on this issue.
	In regard to whether we could form a power-sharing Executive without Sinn Fein, the Government's viewthe view expressed in the Good Friday agreementhas always been that the people of Northern Ireland and, indeed, the people of Ireland voted for an inclusive power-sharing Executive. The ultimate answer is to see the end of criminality on the island of Ireland, and in Northern Ireland in particular, whether that criminality comes from republican or loyalist sources. The Government have not ruled anything out or in, but a lot will depend on the discussions that I have over the next couple of weeks with the political parties to discover their views on the issue. At the end of the day, two things matter: one is that there be consensus among the political parties in Northern Ireland as to what they want; the other is that, whatever happens, we cannot establish an Executive in Northern Ireland without either Unionist or nationalist representation. To that end, the parties could suggest other alternatives to us for the short term, over the coming months. They could include ways in which direct rule Ministers could be made more accountable; I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman on that point.
	On recalling licensed prisoners who might be connected to the bank robbery, I am monitoring all the circumstances surrounding the robbery very carefully and I can confirm that I shall not hesitate to use the powers available to me to suspend the licence of any ex-prisoner if I am satisfied that he or she has broken, or is likely to break, any of his or her licence conditions. I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he requested on that matter.
	The Government intend to move away from the current exemptions for the Northern Ireland political parties from the normal rules on publishing their accounts and receiving foreign donations. We shall be holding discussions with the Northern Ireland parties, the Irish Government and the Electoral Commission on these issues, and we shall seek an extension of the current exemptions to allow time for that consultation. I know that the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members will be discussing this matter with me in more detail in the weeks ahead.
	The hon. Gentleman also raised the question of this House suspending the privileges and parliamentary allowances of Sinn Fein Members. First, I have already said in my statement that the Government will consider a range of possibilities in the coming days, and I think the House would agree that we need to take some time to consider the most effective way of bringing pressure to bear on the republican movement. [Hon. Members: Why?] Not least because we need to discuss a number of the issues relating to sanctions and penalties with the Irish Government[Interruption.] Perhaps the House will allow me to finish. Secondly, I understand that the House has its own rules regarding whether we should allow such actions to happen, and the Government will have to reflect on the significance of that. Thirdly, the Independent Monitoring Commission also has a role in determining what sanctions and penalties, if any, should be introduced with regard to Sinn Fein. We do not want to take a decision on these issues today, because we need to look at the whole picture. I have not ruled anything out on these issues.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to organised crime in Northern Ireland, be it from a loyalist, republican or any other source. He can rest assured that the Organised Crime Task Force and all the other agencies in Northern Ireland will bend their attentions to ensuring that we deal with these issues with the utmost urgency, not least because if this criminality is allowed to continuenot just the criminality that we have seen over the last few weeks, although the problem was dramatically illustrated by this robberyit will corrupt politics and society. We cannot allow that to happen in Northern Ireland, not least because the people there voted against that.

John Hume: Given that the allegations about this appalling crime represent a serious threat not only to our peace process but to the full implementation of the Good Friday agreement, and given that the leadership of Sinn Fein has utterly denied its involvement in itI contacted members of the leadership directly on the telephone and they told me that they had played no role of any description in itdoes the Secretary of State agree that, because of the terrible consequences of this terrible crime, it is necessary to publish the evidence behind the allegations?

Paul Murphy: I agree with my hon. Friend that this is a threat to the process, as I am sure all hon. Members do. The Chief Constable made it clear in his statement last week that he came to his conclusion professionally and that his professional judgment rested on examining the evidence, whether that was from intelligence or the criminal investigation. He said that all lines of his and his senior officers' inquiry led him to his conclusion.
	My hon. Friend will understand that between 45 and 47 police officers are working on the inquiry. A hundred interviews have been held with 100 more to be held in the near future. It would be wrong of the Chief Constable or the police to reveal all that evidence during the course of an investigation because, as my hon. Friend and others will know, that would seriously jeopardise the chances of catching and convicting the culpritsthat is the danger. However, I have read a great deal of the evidence that the Chief Constable has seen and I have no doubt that what he said was right.

Lembit �pik: I am sure that we all agree that the raid was a terrifying ordeal for the civilians caught up in it. No doubt they feared for their lives, and it is a relief to us all that they escaped unharmed.
	We all continue to have high respect for Hugh Orde, but I am also surprised by his and the Government's willingness to blame the IRA for the robbery without revealing the evidence. Will the Secretary of State confirm that he believes that anyone who is prosecuted for the crime will turn out to be associated directly or indirectly with the IRA? If he cannot give us that assurance today, he cannot claim that the IRA was necessarily behind it.
	The Secretary of State asks us to take it on trustwithout sharing evidencethat the IRA was behind the crime, but if he wants to use the defence that he should not share that evidence while the investigation is continuing, perhaps it was not wise to share a conclusion before the investigation had ended. Is there not a danger that that might prejudice the outcome of a court case, because we would be prosecuting not an organisation but individuals?
	We are meant to be normalising Northern Ireland, so is the Secretary of State aware that his fellow Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Dudley, South (Mr. Pearson), refused this morning to say that the Government would necessarily specify an organisation on the basis of criminal activity? Why are the Government unwilling to specify sanctions against paramilitary organisations involved in crime, even if they are not willing to specify the organisations themselves? If it turns out that a paramilitary organisation is behind this substantial criminal offence, it is rather surprising that the Government shy away from giving an assurance that they would consider specifying it on the basis of that.
	It will be difficult to normalise Northern Ireland if paramilitary organisations do not fear the sanction of being specified on the basis of serious criminal activity. That stems from the fact that we have never had a clear definition of ceasefire. Is it not time to use paragraph 13 of the joint declaration as a clear definition of ceasefire, and to add to it the idea that sanctions will extend to criminality as well as terrorism? Is it not the case that until we have a clear and explicit statement of the sanctions that paramilitary organisations can expect when perpetrating organised crime, we are unlikely to resolve the problems of crime or, indeed, terror?

Paul Murphy: I am surprised by the hon. Gentleman's question about the Chief Constable and the evidence, because I thought that I had made it clear that it is difficult for him to produce detailed evidence while an investigation is ongoing. However, the hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do, because he has been involved in Northern Ireland politics for a long time, that it is by no means unusual for the Chief Constable to attribute blame across the political spectrum in Northern Ireland for paramilitary crime. Indeed, the problem that Hugh Orde faced over the past couple of weeks was that he was not attributing quickly enough. However, he wanted to ensure that he was satisfied, in his highly professional opinion, of what was the case. If the detail were to emerge, it could have a detrimental effect on future court proceedings, which is why the situation has arisen.
	I understand the hon. Gentleman's reference to specification, but as he knows, specification refers specifically to whether groups are on ceasefire. We should remember that the IRA is illegal and proscribed by law and the House, as are other organisations. Although we are not ruling out whether we specify or despecify, we must look at the whole picture before doing that.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to sanctionsI have no doubt that this issue will raise its head laterbut under normal circumstances, if the Assembly was up and running, they would be a matter for consideration by the Independent Monitoring Commission. As he knows, such sanctions would refer to various penalties affecting Assembly Members and parties when the Assembly is in session. When we considered the position some months ago, the IMC itself came up with sanctions, and it is quite possible that it may recommend them when it examines the matter. The Government, too, when talking to the Irish Government about issues that affect them, will consider such matters. On normalisation, however, the people of Northern Ireland want an end to such illegality and criminality across the board so that they can live in a decent society.

Kate Hoey: Does the Secretary of State agree that what he has said today will give a lot of heart to IRA-Sinn Fein because democratic politicians and parties from both sides of the community in Northern Ireland are being punished? Surely he should be saying that we will not be held to ransom by IRA-Sinn Fein and that we will go ahead and set up instantly a devolved Northern Ireland Assembly with nationalist and Unionist parties that have no links to terrorism.

Paul Murphy: I could not agree less with my hon. Friend. I find it extremely unusual for her to suggest that the words in my statement could give comfort to the IRAperhaps she will reflect on that.
	I indicated in response to a previous question that I have neither ruled in nor out the possibility of persuading democratic parties in Northern Ireland to set up a voluntary coalition excluding Sinn Fein. However, the reality is that such an arrangement could be made only if the political parties in Northern Ireland that would form part of that coalition agreed to it. The coalition would have to be made up of Unionists and nationalists. It is thus incumbent on the Government, as the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) said, to consider other means of increasing accountability for direct rule Ministers.
	I do not think that anyone would disagree that the most important matter before us today is how to stop criminality in Northern Ireland. If that stopped, and we were persuaded that it had stopped, we could of course enter into an inclusive Executive. If that does not happen, it does not happen, but anyone who suggests that we should not work towards that and stop criminality would not be thanked by people in Northern Ireland. If that does not work, we will have to find other arrangementsI have not ruled those outbut the House should reflect on the fact that it is incumbent on me to talk to political parties in Northern Ireland to get their views on where we might go, which I intend to do. People in Northern Ireland would not want us to take precipitate decisions today without doing that.

Ian Paisley: This is a serious day for Northern Ireland. It is a day when the Government must cease to deal with politics, and deal with crime and paramilitaries. Until crime and paramilitaries are dealt with, we cannot have a proper democracy in Northern Ireland. As the Secretary of State well knows, the Democratic Unionist party took part in the talks process in good faith, but all the time we were in those talks, we were chided by his Government that we should have more faith and trust. We were sniped at by official Unionists, whose deputy leader says today that we were taken for a ride. The Democratic Unionist party was not taken for a ride. We took our stand boldly and strongly for what we believed. We did not change anything to which we said that we were dedicated, and we kept fully to our mandate from the people.
	Then the Democratic Unionist party found out that the word of the IRA was not to be trusted. While we were sitting there, and while the Government were telling us about the goodness and character of the IRA, it was planning to rob the Northern Bank, to give it an unprecedented advantage in an election. With millions in its possession, it could outdo every other political party.
	I am rather surprised at the hon. Member for Foyle(Mr. Hume) and the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik), who leads for the Lib Dems, talking about bringing evidence before us, as even the Taoiseach has said that the evidence that his police have is the same as what the police of Northern Ireland have. Will the hon. Member for Foyle repudiate the Taoiseach of the south of Ireland and say that he is talking nonsense, too?

John Hume: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I did not say that anyone was talking nonsense. I said that, in the public interest, the evidence should be fully published. Who objects to evidence?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a matter of order for the Chair. The hon. Gentleman wishes to continue the debate, and there will be other opportunities for that. May I say to the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) that this is not the occasion for a statement on his part? He should be putting questions on behalf of himself and his party to the Secretary of State. I have allowed some latitude to him because of his position in this matter, but he really must ask questions and not continue with an extended statement.

Ian Paisley: It seems strange, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I am the leader of the largest party in Northern Ireland, that we cannot do what we are sent to do. I will make no further comment on that, because I know that your powers are greater than mine at present.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not trying to tempt me to exemplify the powers of the Chair. I have recognised his position as the leader of the largest party, but it is still not in order for him to make an extended statement at this time. There will be other occasions for that. He should be putting questions to the Secretary of State.

Ian Paisley: I will do that now, but I had to answer some things that were said previously.
	First, the Secretary of State said in his statement that decisions and responses are now needed from Sinn Fein-IRA. Will he please tell us what he means by that? There was not one word about anger. The people of Northern Ireland are more than disappointedthey are very angry about what has happened. Furthermore, what are the penalties to which he referred? The only penalties about which I have heard today are against the democrats of Northern Ireland, whether nationalist or Unionist. The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) was right to make that point. We are being punishedbecause of a bank robbery, all democracy in Northern Ireland is to be brought to an end. I want to press the Secretary of State to tell us what those penalties are.
	On the future of the Assembly, surely, as we have suggested to the Secretary of State, elected representatives could be organised to keep their eye on direct rule Ministers and to call them to account, as they did in the Assembly. That is a job of work that could be done.

Paul Murphy: On those last points, we could certainly consider the sort of arrangement about which the hon. Gentleman talked. His party put forward various proposals with regard to a committee structure or corporate body of the Assembly. The Social Democratic and Labour party put forward suggestions with regard to a similar body, but with commissioners. There are ways in which to examine how best to deal with the accountability of me and other Ministers in the House who have responsibility for Northern Ireland.
	On penalties and sanctions, the hon. Gentleman also knows that, when an incident occurred last year, we considered a host of different penalties and sanctions, ranging from allowances to other matters. Those will be considered by the Government and the Irish Government together, but the House will also have an opportunity to consider such matters, if it so wishes.
	With regard to decisions and responses, those relate entirely to the first point that the hon. Gentleman rightly madewe cannot, to use his words, mix crime and a proper democracy. I hope that I made it clear throughout my statement that the Government will not tolerate that linkage, and that it is not right for that to happen. If he wants a voluntary coalition, however, I repeat that we can only have that if people volunteer to go into it, and it must be across the board. Therefore, there must be other ways. The point is also to end criminality so that we have a wholesome and uncorrupted politics in Northern Ireland.
	The hon. Gentleman rightly talks about anger in Northern Ireland about the issue, but the anger is also because of the impact on the process, given all the work done by his party over the months leading up to Christmas, and the work done by all the parties involved in the peace process in Northern Ireland over the last several years. I assure him that no one in the House was more disappointed than me. Off and on, for 10 years, I have also been involved in the process, and the last thing that I wanted was to come to this House and deliver the statement that I have had to give today. I wanted to ensure that we saw progress from Christmas onwards, with an Executive and an Assembly up and running in the next six months, which the people of Northern Ireland wanted. Now we must put our heads together and work out where we go in the months ahead.

Seamus Mallon: First, I want to pay tribute to members of both Governments who have worked so assiduously on this mater. That will not prevent me from pointing out that there is a fault line in the negotiation process, which is exemplified by the way in which, for more than seven years, every attempt was made to buy the IRA army council into the political process at the expense of other factorsnot just buying in republicans but others. There is a fault line in any political process when people must be bought into such a process in a place like Northern Ireland. It is an even worse fault line when, added to that, we have secret deals that amount to political patronage, and secret arrangements with paramilitary groups, and when the law itself can be bartered for political reasons, as was attempted in the Republic of Ireland.
	May I ask the Secretary of State one thing? This bartering of the Good Friday agreement has sucked dry the idealism and hope that exists within the community. That idealism, vision and hope is disappearing. As the Secretary of State is a man for whom I have enormous respect, may I ask him to get rid of the fault line in the negotiating process and reinvent integrity, decency and honesty in it, so that once again I, as one who has been involved for many years, can say with pride that I am part of the political process rather than seeing it becoming more and more of a moral quagmire?

Paul Murphy: Of course, my hon. Friend has been part of that process for many years. Its success, in the years in which we have had success, is largely due to him and others like him. He makes a point about the negotiation process, and perhaps it is time to take on a different type of negotiation. That will result largely from my discussions in the weeks ahead with political parties.
	My hon. Friend rightly mentioned the Good Friday agreement, which of course lies at the heart of any negotiations that we have. What struck me as particularly awful about the events of the last few weeks was that they were so much against the principles of that agreement. People constantly talk of acceding to, agreeing to, accepting and implementing the agreement, but nothing could be worse than an act of major criminalitywhich is how we have described it todaythat went against what people voted for when they voted for the agreement in 1998.

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If there is not brevity in both questions and answers, I shall not be able to call every Member who is seeking to catch my eye.

David Burnside: I wish the Secretary of State and his ministerial team a happy and prosperous new year. We should be optimistic about the future, and not be depressed about recent events. The statement, however, was depressing. We all like the Secretary of State and get on reasonably well with his ministerial team, but the statement was vacuous and empty, with no reference to sanctions or threat. Sinn Fein-IRA are laughing at the British Government again. The Secretary of State knows the facts from his security information. He knows about Bobby Storey, head of intelligence, reporting to the army council. He knows about Adams, McGuinness, Keenan, Slab Murphytop of the criminal rich list, with 32 millionGillen and the rest. He knows who carried out the Northern bank robbery. It was the Provisional IRA. It was Bobby StoreyBobby Storey of Stormontgate, Bobby Storey of crime, Bobby Storey of Castlereagh

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not going to listen to a long speech. I appeal to the House for short questions. If the hon. Gentleman does not have a short question, he may as well remain seated.

David Burnside: I think I have made my point clear, Mr. Deputy Speaker: everyone knows who was responsible.
	What is the Secretary of State going to do? What sanctions are there? What strengthened will is going to emanate from the House with regard to facilities in the House, sanctions and fines? Will there be a fine of a couple of thousand pounds, when they have 26.5 million in the bank?

Paul Murphy: I understand the hon. Gentleman's frustration. We are all frustrated by what has happenedbut I always try to think about what the people of Northern Ireland would like to happen. Important as withdrawing facilities from the House of Commons might be, and important as withdrawing allowances from parties that can afford it might be from the hon. Gentleman's point of viewwhatever the penalties might bethe most important thing for us to do in Northern Ireland is to stop the criminality and bring about a political process that can proceed without it. That matters more than anything else in Northern Ireland. I am not dismissing the penalties and all the rest of it. We will consider that with our Irish Government partners during the next week or two. But the most important thing for the people of Northern Ireland is to stop the brutality, savagery and criminality that I described in my statement.

Harry Barnes: The Government have been looking at the whole picture in Northern Ireland for seven years, since the Belfast agreement. To an extent I have been one of those who have gone along with that approach, suggesting that we should nudge a bit further each timebut is there not a point at which the picture needs to be completed? We have now seen what has been involved, as confirmed by the Secretary of State. Surely we are now reaching that point. Must we wait for a next time before decisions are made and action taken against Sinn Fein and the Provisional IRA?

Paul Murphy: I repeat what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). The whole picture is important, because no one, but no one, wants to return to 30 or 40 years of troubles in Northern Ireland. I do not think that that will happen: I think we have come too far for it to happen.
	I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh that we may have reached a stage at which we must deal with different negotiating arrangements, but if that happens it must be based on discussion with all the political parties in Northern Ireland, particularly those represented here who have spoken today. Although we may have to act in that way, we must not give up the hope that we can have a Northern Ireland that is free of criminality and has wholesome politics. We will continue in that hope. I do agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) that the impact of this event has been so enormous that we need to rethink many things.

Andrew Robathan: It has indeed been nearly seven years since the Belfast agreement. At our last Northern Ireland Question Time, I asked the Secretary of State when he would stop believing Sinn Fein lies. That they are lies is now proven beyond any doubt, so will he now cease speaking to the people who are lying, and stop believing them untilif everthey prove their good faith beyond peradventure? I respect the Secretary of State, but I beg him to give us no more sorrowful words and no hand-wringing, and please to take action against those terrorist crooks. Will he start by suspending them from the House of Commons, and taking away the public money that is subsidising terrorism and criminality in part of the United Kingdom? The rule of law should apply throughout the United Kingdom. The Secretary of State has it in his power to take action. Will he do so now?

Paul Murphy: I think that the idea of proof beyond peradventure is right, but I also think that the passion should be directed towards stopping the criminality and the things that I described in the earlier part of my statement. The Organised Crime Task Force, other agencies in Northern Irelandthe police, Customs or othersand indeed all of us must concentrate on stopping that criminality and ensuring that it does not profit people either politically or financially. We may well have to consider different sanctions and penalties, but I emphasise that ultimately the most important thing for those who live in Northern Ireland is stopping the kind of action that has necessitated my coming here today.

Eddie McGrady: Will the Secretary of State, and indeed all Members, send a message of hope for the well-being of the families who were involved, or coerced, in this terrible, savage and brutal crime? My constituents the McMullen family, who are both neighbours and friends, were savagely treated.
	The Secretary of State often says, as he did last Friday, that there can be no place for terrorist or criminal activity. Let me say bluntly that we have heard that mantra in different forms for a number of years. What about the intelligence to which the Secretary of State has been privy over those years, and what has been reiterated by me in the House month after month? Political Sinn Fein is mainly the Provisional IRA in lounge suits, and every day in my community it is imposing its will and diktat. When will the Government get real, and stop Sinn Fein's criminal and paramilitary activities being made to seem credible and proper?

Paul Murphy: My hon. Friend has a long history of opposing criminality and similar activity in the part of Northern Ireland that he represents, and exposing it in the House of Commons. I do not disagree with a word that he has said, but the document that I have here, agreed before ChristmasProposals by the British and Irish Governments for a Comprehensive Agreementaddresses the issue of criminality.
	No one has suggestedcertainly I have not, during my time as Secretary of Statethat there has not been criminality on the part of paramilitary organisations linked to political parties, including the IRA. That has been said time and again. What we are dealing with today is this: the enormity of the robbery, and the savagery that accompanied it, were such that people can take no more. That is why the House has taken the view it has taken. But my hon. Friend and I know, because we were involved in negotiations for many years, that our aim must be to achieve a peaceful democratic Northern Ireland. His party worked very hard for that, and for a non-violent future for the people whom he and his colleagues represent.

Peter Robinson: The Secretary of State has already indicated his respect for the views of the people of Northern Ireland. How does he respond to the prevailing view in Northern Ireland that on this issue, there are two certainties? The first is that the Provisional IRA will continue with its terrorism and criminality; the second is that after a very short time passes, the Secretary of State's tough talk will dissolve and the Government will be back to holding their hands again.How is it that in paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 of the Secretary of State's statement, the clearest of indications is given to Provisional Sinn Fein that he will not allow the process to move on without it? Why is democracy in Northern Ireland to be held back because of gunmen and gangsters? Surely the time has come to make it very clear that politics moves on, and moves on without it.

Paul Murphy: It may have to be that. Over past months, the hon. Gentleman and his party colleagues have worked hard to establish an agreement between the two Governments and the other parties on the way forward, and I know that, like everybody else, he is deeply disappointed that that has not occurred. I also know that he and other members of his party rightly want restoration of the institutions in Northern Ireland as quickly as possible. I share that view completely, and I made it clear in my statement that there can be no place in the government of Northern Ireland for a party linked to people who carry out the sort of robberies that I described today. The hon. Gentleman knows, however, that in order to get any substitute for what was agreed before Christmas, it is important for us to talk to the political parties that have raised issues here today about the way ahead. I simply say to him that we are not ruling anything in or anything out until we have had those discussions, which it is important to have. He speaks robustly and with great strength, but he knows that in order to deal with these issues, we have to sit down and discuss themas I will do with him in an hour's time.

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have other important business to protect, so we must move on.

Flooding (North-West)

Elliot Morley: With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the serious flooding that affected northern England, especially Carlisle, at the weekend. I also want to refer to the loss of drinking water supplies in Hexham, Northumberland.
	The flooding was caused by a major storm that produced truly exceptional amounts of rain: some 9 in fell in a 36-hour period on already saturated land. This rainfall quickly reached the rivers Eden, in Cumbria, and Tyne, in Northumberland. They were unable to cope with such torrential loads, and flood banks were overtopped. I have to report that very sadly, three lives were lost in the Carlisle area. The coroner reported that two deaths were caused by drowning, and one by trauma when a wall collapsed in high winds. Inquests have been opened and adjourned.
	Nearly 3,000 properties have been flooded in Carlisle. Elsewhere in northern England, nearly 100 properties were flooded along the River Tyne. The Carlisle major incident plan was activated and many residents were evacuated. Some stayed with family and friends; others have been housed in reception centres. There are continuing problems with the electricity supply and telephone connections to many houses. I saw for myself on Sunday just how serious the flooding was in Carlisle, and I know from this and previous experience how utterly devastating flooding can be for those affected. The thoughts of the Governmentand, I am sure, those of the whole Houseare with everyone affected, and especially with those who have lost loved ones.
	I pay tribute to all those involved in the emergency response over the weekendincluding the fire, ambulance and police services, the local authority, the Environment Agency, the coastguard, mountain rescue, and the militarywho assisted greatly in rescuing those trapped by the flooding. I also want to thank the voluntary organisations that have given so much help in caring for those affected.
	As a Government, we shall seek to ensure that all that can be done is being done to return the community to normal as quickly as possible. Emergency financial assistance is available to local authorities, under the Bellwin scheme, to help with non-insurable clear-up costs following a disaster or emergency in their area. Such an authority has one month from the end of an incident to notify the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister that it intends to apply for activation of the Bellwin scheme. If it is approved, the Department will usually reimburse 85 per cent. of eligible costs above a threshold related to the authority's annual budget.
	I am also pleased to note that the Association of British Insurers has encouraged its members to play their part in the recovery by ensuring that they have sufficient capacity to deal with the exceptional volume of claims from Carlisle and elsewhere, especially given that further exceptional storms are expected imminently in northern Britain. As with all major flooding events, we will work with the Environment Agency in considering the lessons learned. We will do this once the agency has dealt with the immediate aftermath of the flooding, which is clearly its first priority, and there has been an opportunity to analyse the event and the response. However, preliminary indications are that this was the most serious flood in Cumbria since 1822. Although flood defences on the River Eden remained intact, they were overtopped by the extreme water flows. There were breaches of defences at Corbridge, on the River Tyne, but the event was so severe that those defences were overtopped anyway.
	I should also inform the House that proposals are being developed for a new Environment Agency flood defence scheme to provide added protection for Carlisle. A number of options are being considered, and this analysis will now take account of the last weekend's flooding. However, I emphasise that whatever flood defences we providethe Government have committed record levels of investment: almost 480 million in this financial year and 570 million for 200506we cannot provide absolute protection in all areas against all conceivable flooding events. There is always the risk that truly exceptional storms and rainfall such as occurred at the weekend will strike somewhere.
	I should further inform the House that the mains drinking water supply has been lost to properties in Hexham, Northumberland. Two water mains that pass under the River Tyne in the town were severely damaged by a fallen tree passing in the flooded river. The water company was able to maintain the supply to all but 1,100 properties until yesterday, but now, 10,000 are without mains supply. Northumbrian Water is providing emergency supplies of water in static tanks and bottles. The mains are about 1.5 m below the river bed and cannot be immediately accessed for repair. However, as an interim measure to restore the mains supply, the company is laying temporary overland pipework, which it expects to complete tonight. Some customers' supplies should be restored tomorrow, and others' throughout this week.
	Soon, responsibility for the short-term and longer-term recovery effort will pass to the local authorities in Cumbria, and I am sure that elected members and officials will rise to the challenge. The Government office for the north-west and the Northwest Development Agency are already working with the local authorities to support them in that process.
	What the Government can, and will, do is to ensure that we provide the investment for the Environment Agency and for others involved in flood defence to undertake works where they are most needed. We have always made it clear that nobody can guarantee that there will not be extreme weather events or flooding, but we can continually reduce riskas we are doingby investing in defences and warning systems, and by ensuring that there are efficient and effective emergency arrangements to cope with such extreme events. I repeat that commitment to the House.

Tim Yeo: I begin by expressing my deepest sympathy, and that of the Opposition, to the families of those who lost their lives in the floods and gales that hit the north-west last weekend, and to the thousands of people who have suffered severe hardship, inconvenience and anxiety, along with damage to their property. I join the Minister in paying a warm tribute to the emergency servicesthey responded in very difficult conditions in order to rescue people trapped by the floodingto the work of the many volunteers who supported them, and to the role played by Cumbria county council and other authorities.
	I welcome the application of the Bellwin formula and the statement from the Association of British Insurers. The priority is, of course, to provide help for the victims of the floods and get them back home as soon as possible, and to restore essential servicesincluding electricity and water suppliesvery swiftly. On learning lessons from what has happened, and given in particular the loss of life, will the Minister review the arrangements for warning those likely to be affected about the onset of extreme weather that might threaten their homes? Indeed, I understand that such warnings might be needed again in that region in the near future.
	Once the immediate consequences of the floods have been redressed, questions arise about what other steps the Government can reasonably take. Inevitably, sudden and severe rainfall is likely to cause floods and I accept the Minister's point that no system of flood defences can guarantee total protection against adverse consequences. It is, however, a characteristic of climate change that sudden and severe rainfall will occur more frequently in future than it has in the past. It may be more than a century since this part of England suffered such severe floods, but we cannot assume that another century will pass before it happens again.
	The Government have admitted that more than a million homes around the country are at risk of being flooded, so is the Minister satisfied that the planning process takes enough account of flood risks? Have not the risks been worsened by too much development taking place in areas that are in danger of being flooded and in places where the construction of buildings will increase the risk of existing buildings being flooded? Regardless of whether that was a factor in the latest incident, does the Minister agree that one way to reduce the risk of loss of life and damage to property resulting from flooding would be to require local authorities to adopt a more precautionary approach in respect of flood risk when giving planning consent for new development?
	Turning to the broader issue of climate change, does the Minister accept that the severity of the rainfall that caused these floods is indeed a characteristic of climate change and is likely to recur? Does he also agree that it adds urgency to the challenge that Britain and the rest of the world face in tackling a threat that some may see as distant and global, but whose consequences can be very immediate and local?
	Finally, will the Minister keep Parliament and the public regularly informed in a timely way about progress made on the immediate task of restoring public services to the affected areas and providing help to those who suffered, and on proposals for a new flood defence scheme to protect Carlisle and the surrounding area?

Elliot Morley: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support for the sterling work done by the emergency services and his thoughtful and measured response. I can tell him that there will be a review of the flood warning system when the immediate emergency is over. It appears from early indications that the warning system was activated, but that only some people received those warnings. Some did not, so we obviously want to look further into the details of that. Given the extent of storms and floods, tremendous demands were made of the emergency warning system. I understand that some of the telemetry in the river systems was overwhelmed because of the speed of the water's rise.
	The hon. Gentleman is right about climate change, and we certainly need to take into account its long-term implications. Climate change is a reality and a fact in respect of global warming. We know the figures and we can see the impact that various activities have made. We need to measure long-term trends in weather patterns. We have seen a series of extreme weather events not only in our own country, but globally, with hurricanes and typhoons. People would be ill advised not to assume that there is a link between global warming and climatic change.
	We are trying to understand climate change better and, as part of our G8 presidency, we are hosting a major scientific conference in February at the Hadley centre, which is recognised as one of the world's leading centres of climatic forecasting and analysis. That is part of our attempt to understand the long-term implications, but we cannot be complacent. That is why the Government set up the Foresight programme and climate impacts programme to examine the potential consequences of climatic change and prepare to deal with it.
	I accept what the hon. Gentleman said about flood plain development. It is certainly the case that there has been inappropriate development over the years on those plains. We now have new guidance under PPG25, which places an obligation on planning authorities to take flood risk into account when assessing planning applications. The Environment Agency is a statutory consultee, and also offers its opinions on planning applications. Those are all part of the Government's long-term planning and long-term commitment to reduce the risks that people in this country face.

Eric Martlew: Thank you for calling me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I first ask you to pass on my thanks to Mr. Speaker for his kind words of sympathy and support for my constituents and myself yesterday? I also thank the Minister, not just for his statement today, but for his prompt action in visiting Carlisle. I rang him on the Saturday, and by Sunday lunchtime he was there. That was greatly appreciated by my constituents. The Minister was able to answer many of their questions about Government support. As I said, it will not be forgotten.
	Last Friday night and Saturday morning were horrendous. The Minister said that it was the worst flooding since 1822 and there is a mark on the Eden bridge to show that flood level. The recent flood went beyond it. It was horrendous. Within 36 hours, we had 9 in of rain. Tragically, three people died: Mr. Scott was killed by falling farm masonry, and two elderly ladies, Mrs. Threlkeld and Mrs. Porter, who lived in Warwick road in my constituency, sadly drowned in the incident. I want to offer my sympathy and condolences to the families of all those people, and I know that the House is with me on that. Another consequence was the flooding of 3,000 houses, and almost 100,000 people were without electricity, many for three nights. It has been a very difficult time.
	I particularly thank the agencies involved in support. The police and the fire service did everything that they could, and more besides. We need to recall that both the fire station and the police station were under 6 ft of water, reflecting the seriousness of the problem. The city council and the county council were excellent, especially social services in looking after the elderly and the young. The reception centres were manned by volunteersthe Women's Royal Voluntary Service, the Salvation Army and the Churches. The Minister and I visited them on Sunday and we saw the tremendous welcome that people were given at those centres. The community spirit in the city has been brilliant. United Utilities and the Environment Agency pulled people in from all over the country to get services back to normal as quickly as possible.
	A special thank you should also go to BBC Radio Cumbria. Many people have told me that it was a lifeline. The telephones were down and there were no proper communications, so people listened to their car radios or battery-charged radios. It was the only way to get the information out. Without that, things would be have been even more intolerable for many people.
	There should be further investigation of certain problems. I believe that the early warning flood system failed for some people, including myself. The local authority may also have been hampered by a shortage of sandbags. I am not convinced that the insurance industry has done itself any good, either. It was very slow to respond, especially at the weekend.
	What of the future? Many industries and businesses in my constituency have been badly affected economically and I am sure that redundancies will follow. I hope that the Government will be generous in giving help. I want to ask the Minister to think about what more the regional development agencies could do to help us. He has already touched on helping local authorities. I have asked him to talk to the insurance companies to see whether they can lift their performance. Will he also ask United Utilities to do its best on the ground to get services back to normal? I understand that at this very moment, accountants are looking at ways to fiddle the compensation awarded to my constituents. It is very bad indeed to see people trying to wriggle out of their commitments. My constituents need every penny to get themselves back on their feet.
	In conclusion, I thank the Minister and ask him whether he will come back to Carlisle in a few weeks' time when we know the full extent of the damage, in order to talk to the stakeholders in the area and move forward. Finally, I want to say how proud I have been of my constituents over the last few days.

Elliot Morley: I want to pay tribute to my hon. Friend and colleague, who contacted me immediately about the emergency that his constituents faced. He is a flood victim himself, and has been severely affected, but he took time out to go around the various centres and to talk to people and the local authorities involved. He did everything that he could to support his constituents in the emergency. I join him in paying tribute to BBC Radio Cumbria, which did a sterling job in passing on information and keeping people informed.
	I assure my hon. Friend that a full and complete assessment will be made of the response to the emergency when the flood's immediate effects have been dealt with. There will be time then to begin the process of identifying any weaknesses in the warning system. If any such weaknesses are found, they will need to be rectified.
	My Department has been in touch with the ABI which, along with many individual insurance companies, has a lot of experience with such problems. The record in relation to getting assessors out to people quickly is good. Assessments are made quickly so that people can get builders in and begin to replace damaged goods. I am sure that the ABI will take note of what has been said and that it will act accordingly.
	As I said, local authorities will take the lead in the post-flood recovery programme. However, I have asked the Government office for the north-west to work with local authorities and the local regional development agency to determine what support it can give and which issues need to be addressed. I am sorry to hear what my hon. Friend says about United Utilities Water. Its staff worked around the clock and did a fantastic job in reconnecting a severely damaged electricity sub-station as quickly as possible. It is possible that some of the good will gained could be lost if there are difficulties over the detail of the agreed compensation packages. I assure my hon. Friend that I will draw his comments to the attention of colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry, who I am sure will want to examine what he has said.
	Finally, I accept that much attention is given to the immediate consequences of a flood. There is a lot of media attention, and people show a great deal of support at that time, but afterwardswhen the clean-up and repair work is startedpeople can feel that they have been forgotten. I want to assure the people of Carlisle and the other affected areas that they will not be forgotten. I shall certainly look at my diary, with a view to returning to the area to see how the recovery process is progressing.

Norman Baker: I also express, on behalf of my Liberal Democrat colleagues, my sympathy to the people of Carlisle and the neighbouring areas. The severe weather at the weekend must have been a dreadful experience, especially for the families who sadly lost their lives. I also want to endorse the thanks that have been extended to the emergency services, the local and central Government agencies that have been involved, and the voluntary sector. The help that has been given has been invaluable, as it has been on other occasions elsewhere in the country.
	It is important to restore life to normal as soon as possible. I welcome what the Minister said in that regard, and I recognise the work that he and his colleagues in DEFRA and other Departments are doing.
	The Minister spoke about the lessons to be learned. Does he agree that, in essence, there are two such lessons? The first is that we must accelerate even more our proactive efforts to put in place measures to tackle and limit the impact of climate change. The Minister will be aware that the Government's chief scientist, Sir David King, believes that flooding will be the first manifestation of that change to affect this country in an extensive manner.
	That is already beginning to happen. I asked a parliamentary question about how many times the Thames barrier has been opened. I was told that the figure has risen from two or three times a year in the 1980s to a projected 325 times a year by the end of this century. It is clear that we are going to have major problems with water and flooding in this century.
	The second lesson is that we must take measures to deal with the consequences of climate change, and to limit as far as possible the impact that it has on individuals and communities. I agree with the Minister that it is impossible to eliminate all floods all the time, but does he agree that there is a need to improve flood defences even faster than the current rate? I acknowledge that the Government have put more money into that, and that they have sorted out some of the delivery problems. However, even more must be done, because the risks are increasing dramatically.
	Will the Minister tell the people of Carlisle when they are likely to have flood defences in place that will eliminate the greater part of the risk that they face at present? Will he reflect on what happened in the year 2000, when another series of severe floods hit Britain? My constituency of Lewes, and other areas, were badly hit, and the Deputy Prime Minister regarded what happened as a wake-up call. How many of the towns affected in 2000 have flood defence schemes in place now? How many have had such schemes authorised, and in how many areas has nothing been done?
	With the best will in the worldand I accept that the Government are doing their best in many respectsI fear that we have not made as much progress as we should have done. Lewes in my constituency has had only a tiny part of the necessary flood defence work completed. Nothing else has been approved, but once again we have floods up to the bridge today.
	Will the Minister look again at PPG25, paying particular regard to the Deputy Prime Minister's so-called sustainable communities east of London? Will he quantify the additional flood risk that will be caused by those communities if they are built in the way that has been set out?
	Will the Minister encourage insurance companies to continue to provide cover for people in Carlisle and elsewhere? He will know that, after 2000, there was some dispute about whether cover should be provided for flood-affected properties. It can be a very unwelcome realisation for people who have been flooded to discover that they can have no insurance subsequently. Will he encourage the insurance industry to be creative in its response? Companies should not go for like-for-like replacements but should, for example, move electrical sockets up from floorboard level and place them higher up walls to minimise the impact of any future flood.
	Britain will suffer more, and more severe, flooding in the future. The Government have begun to move on the matter, but we have not yet seen the step change that we need.

Elliot Morley: The hon. Gentleman is right about the implications of climate change. The Prime Minister has given a very clear and international lead on this matter. It is one of the key themes of our G8 presidency, and I have already mentioned the conference that we will hold. The matter will be discussed at a joint conference for Environment and Development Ministersthe first of its kind to be held under the aegis of the G8. Some of the developing economies, such as Brazil, India and China, will also be invited to participate in the conference, at which climate change will be one of the subjects for discussion.
	Consultations in respect of the Carlisle flood defence scheme are already well advanced, as the process was already under way. The effects of the recent events on Carlisle will be taken into account when the scheme is designed. I hope that the matter can be progressed as quickly as humanly possible. In Carlisle, I was accompanied by Sir John Harman, the chair of the Environment Agency, who said that the scheme would be examined to determine how it could be taken forward as smoothly as possible.
	I understand the point made about Lewes, but I can tell the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) that if he were to table a parliamentary question on this matter, I think that he would find that every community affected in 2000 either has a flood defence scheme in place now, or that there is one being put in place. In those areas where such schemes are not possible for technical reasons, we have put in place catchment area plans, and we have also made use of temporary, portable barriers with some success.
	Our record is a good one. Spending has increased from some 300 million in 1997 to a projected 570 million this year. That is a significant investment in respect of flood defence. The hon. Member for Lewes asked whether it was possible to take things forward more quickly, but it is likely that the level of spending now implemented will absorb our total capacity when it comes to engineers and consultants. Moreover, the design and planning processes must also be taken into account. Unfortunately, neither of those processes is quick, but they are both necessary and important. Sometimes technical issues arise. For example, one complication in Lewes involved the question of which of the various riparian owners were responsible for the town's walls. That is another dimension that has to be taken into account. We have the latest strategy, which has been sent to DEFRA, and we are considering it in relation to Lewes.
	With reference to insurance, the Association of British Insurers issued a statement of principles, whereby its members would continue to provide insurance because of the continued investment by the Government. The Government have met their side of the bargain, and I am glad to say that with that statement the ABI has done so too.

David Maclean: I begin by passing on my condolences to the families of Margaret Threlkeld, Margaret Porter and my own constituent Michael Scott, who tragically lost their lives in the severe weather. I pass on my commiserations to all the thousands affected in Carlisle and to those in my constituencyin Penrith, Appleby and other partswho have also been badly affected.
	The emergency services performed magnificently, as we always expect them to. I also pay tribute to the excellent response of Cumbria county council and the superb emergency centre that it set up rather quickly, and to the actions of Carlisle city council. The voluntary sector was mentioned by the Minister, but I do not know whether people are aware of the huge amount of work done by the Salvation Army, the Women's Royal Voluntary Service and many others, and hundreds of people who are not part of the voluntary sector but just came along to help and brought their little boats to rescue people.
	The Minister indicated that there would be emergency help for Cumbria, and that he might be willing to come back to the area. May I suggest a way in which he could help? For the Bellwin formula to trigger, Cumbria county council would have to spend 975,000. The clean-up costs and all the other costs will be enormous but will probably not come to that. They may come to 500,000 or even 800,000, in which case the Government will not contribute a penny. In view of the fact that the Cumbria rate support grant has been severely squeezed by the Government, if the Minister were to pay the 6 million that DEFRA still owes Cumbria from the foot and mouth compensation money which it is still outrageously refusing to pay, Cumbria would get the funding that it requires, he would not have to worry about the Bellwin scheme, justice would be done by all, and all Cumbrians, who have borne the events of the past few days with fortitude and courage, would be content that the Government had behaved fairly. Bring the cheque for the 6 million Minister, and Cumbrians will be content.

Elliot Morley: I shall deal with that point in a moment. I agree that the emergency service response was excellent. The gold command centre was set up quickly and the Carlisle plan was implemented. That is a result of the emergency planning put in place following the Bye report, which is regularly implemented. Wherever there has been a major eventI have attended nearly all of them since 1997that has been applied effectively and efficiently.
	On the Bellwin costs, I understand what the right hon. Gentleman says about Cumbria county council. The Bellwin formula was designed by the previous Government, so he will be aware that all local authorities are expected to have within their contingency funds an element for emergencies. That is an obligation. The idea of the Bellwin formula is that there is an expenditure threshold, as the right hon. Gentleman rightly stated. Carlisle city council will have a contingency for emergencies, but we would not expect that to cover the costs of what has happened in Carlisle. It is inevitable that Carlisle city council will qualify for the Bellwin formula.
	Local authorities are not being penalised. It is a rule that they must all hold in their reserves contingency funds for emergencies. If the costs go over the agreed level, the Government start to pick up 85 per cent. of the relevant costs. That is not a new scheme; it has been established for many years, following discussion with the Local Government Association.
	The right hon. Gentleman mentions the 6 million which is in dispute between the waste disposal company owned by Cumbria county council and DEFRA. He surely would not expect any Government to pay out sums of money unless there were proper invoices and agreements that had been properly approved and properly applied. To pay out money without those normal accounting methods and procedures is an irresponsible use of public funds. If that is the attitude of the Conservative party towards anybodywhether a private or a public companywho gives them a gigantic bill without the proper accounting and says Pay up!, that bodes badly for the future of the Conservatives.

Peter Atkinson: I join colleagues in thanking the Minister and his staff for their concern over the weekend and subsequently for the plight of the people of Hexham and surrounding villages, who lost their water supply, ironically, because of the flooding of the River Tyne. Although many businesses have had to shut and are facing losses, the majority of the population have faced the crisis with remarkable stoicism and good humour. I place on record their thanks for all the efforts of the emergency services, the Environment Agency and particularly Northumbrian Water, whose employees have worked tirelessly day and night to restore supplies and provide emergency supplies very efficiently.
	For people who have lost their water supply, hopefully it will be reconnected within a day or two, but for those whose homes were flooded, it will be many months before they overcome the damage that has been caused. When the immediate crisis is over and the Minister takes a calm look at what happened, will he look particularly at the situation regarding the protective walls at Corbridge and Warden, where they were breached, to see whether anything should have been done? There was a suggestionwhether it is true, I do not knowthat the banks at Corbridge were damaged by burrowing rabbits over the years and weakened as a consequence. Will the Minister also consider whether the warning system that was in place was adequate?

Elliot Morley: I can give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that we will look at the situation at Corbridge. It sounds as if repairs to the defences will be needed, and I am sure that the Environment Agency will look into that. As he rightly says, when the emergency situation in Cumbria has been dealt with, those are the sort of issues that we will want to examine. If rectification is needed, we will consider the steps that need to be taken.
	Many hon. Members in the Cumbria area have been affected. I have spoken to a number of them, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Tony Cunningham), who contacted me over the weekend on behalf of his constituents in relation to the effects that many people had suffered across the Cumbrian region because of the gales and the extreme weather. We take such matters seriously and when the situation improves, all these aspects will be examined in detail.

Tim Collins: Of the 5,500 people in Cumbria who were without power this morning, 1,500 are in my constituency. If the Minister intends to have a word with United Utilities or to invite his colleagues at the Department of Trade and Industry to do so, will he congratulate the engineers on the sterling work that they have been doing by working until 3 am reconnecting people, and suggest that United Utilities needs to improve its call centre, which has not been very efficient in giving accurate and timely information to people who have been extremely concerned about when or whether they will be reconnected?
	Will the Minister make it clear that any financial assistance that the Government make available to local authorities will be available to all local authorities in Cumbria that have incurred exceptional costs as a result of these events, specifically including South Lakeland district council? Finally, given that further very severe weather is expected tonight and early tomorrow morning, what steps has the Minister taken in the past 48 hours, which have been working days, in consultation with local authorities there to prepare for a possible repetition of recent events in the next few hours?

Elliot Morley: I join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating the engineers of United Utilities who have indeed worked around the clock. I met some of its engineers; they were based in the gold command so that there could be liaison on the work that was being done. They were also able to give me a full and detailed briefing on the situation and on what they were doing to reconnect power.
	I can certainly confirm that the Bellwin scheme will apply to any authority in the Cumbrian region that qualifies under the criteria. If there is additional expense above the agreed threshold, any local authority is entitled to make a claim within the one month qualifying period.
	I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's comments about the call centre will be taken into account by the DTI. Just as we shall evaluate the response of the Government and of public bodies, I am sure that utility companies, too, will in due course want to evaluate their response.

Point of Order

Gwyneth Dunwoody: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will be aware that each of the statements, and the urgent question, is important; not one of us would in any way resile from the need to discuss those matters on the Floor of the House. However, the difficulty is that we are about to take the Second Reading of a major piece of legislation, so may I ask you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to draw the attention of the Leader of the House and the House authorities to the fact that taking three statements and an urgent question, one after the other, pushes back the time available to Members to discuss an important piece of legislation?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I certainly note the hon. Lady's comments and I will bring them to the attention of the Leader of the House and the House authorities.

Orders of the Day
	  
	Road Safety Bill

[Relevant documents: The Sixteenth Report from the Transport Committee, Session 200304, on Traffic Law and its Enforcement (HC 105-I), and the Government reply thereto, Cm 6442]
	Order for Second Reading read.

Alistair Darling: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	The Bill takes forward legislation that will, I hope, help to reduce the number of deaths and injuries that occur every day on the roads and to improve road safety for all road users.
	The UK has one of the best road safety records in the world. It is a record that most EU countries, for example, strive to match. We are better than the United States and the Australians, and on a par with Sweden and the Netherlands, yet the fact remains that 10 people are killed on our roads every day. It is against that background that I ask the House to consider the Bill.
	Like successive Governments, this Government are committed to reducing the number of people killed and seriously injured. That is why, in March 2000, we set out a strategy to deliver substantial reductions in road casualties. I remind the House of the targets we set: a 40 per cent. reduction in all road casualties by 2010, with a 50 per cent. reduction in the number of children who are killed or seriously injured.
	Good progress has been made. For example, in 2003 we saw a 6 per cent. fall in the number of people killed or seriously injuredthe biggest annual drop since the road safety strategy was launched four years ago. By 2003, the number of people killed or seriously injured had fallen by 20 per cent., which means we are about halfway towards our 40 per cent. target for 2010, and the number of children killed or seriously injured had fallen to just over 4,100, which is more than three quarters of the way towards achieving the 50 per cent. reduction target for children.
	Despite that welcome progress, too many people are killed or seriously injured.

Denis Murphy: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be aware of the tragic case in my constituency in which a young child, Rebecca Sawyer, was killed and her family seriously injured by a hit and run driver. The individual responsible had 89 previous convictions, one of which was for causing death by dangerous driving. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the public need to be protected from such individuals, who kill and maim? As the Bill passes through the parliamentary process, will he examine in detail the possibility of introducing a new offence of causing death by aggravated dangerous driving, which could carry a maximum sentence of life imprisonment?

Alistair Darling: We all have the greatest sympathy for the family who were affected by that accident, and my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that many people are needlessly killed or seriously injured by bad driving. As a result of changes that have been made, the maximum penalty is, I think, 14 years for causing death by dangerous driving. The Home Office is considering whether a series of aggravated offences should be introduced. Such offences are not in the Bill because the issue is still being looked at and further consideration is necessary, but most hon. Members would hope that the courts take incidents that involve death or serious injury on the road very seriously indeed. Someone who kills someone else using a car is just as guilty and just as culpable as someone who uses a weapon to do so. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to what is happening.

Paul Stinchcombe: My right hon. Friend mentioned the ongoing Home Office review of the various offences where death is caused by bad driving. Will he prevail on the Home Office to look at an offence of causing death by careless driving? He might have already received a letter from my constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Melnik, about the tragic death of their 17-year-old daughter, who was killed recently by a careless driver. As no offence of causing death by careless driving is known to English law, the driver could not be charged with any offence that marked the fact of her death at all. He could only be fineda price paid for the loss of a life caused by criminal negligence of just 500.

Alistair Darling: Again, I have a great deal of sympathy with what my hon. Friend says. The Home Office and my Department are looking at aggravated offences, because it is important that society can show its disapproval when someone causes death in that way. As I said just a few moments ago, killing someone with a car, where someone is culpable, needs to be dealt with. It needs to be treated by the courts with the utmost seriousness and, where necessary, exemplary sentences ought to be imposed. We should be very clear about the fact that someone who drives dangerously or carelessly and causes the death of someone who would otherwise be alive is just as guilty as if they took a weapon to them, resulting in their death.

Brian Iddon: rose

Alistair Darling: I will give way; then I want to make some progress.

Brian Iddon: I am sorry to delay the Secretary of State. My constituency has a particularly bad accident record, and we are very grateful to the Government for giving the local authority 750,000 as a pilot measure. In 18 months, there have been six very tragic incidents in my constituency of death by dangerous driving, some of which I have raised on other occasions on the Floor of the House. The Home Office is reviewing the sentences for causing death by dangerous driving. I know that that is not my right hon. Friend's Department, but is he able to say when we are likely to know the outcome of the review?

Alistair Darling: I cannot give my hon. Friend a precise date on which the Home Office will conclude its review, but Ministers are well aware, both from their constituency experience and from what my hon. Friend and others have said in the House, that people want us to make proposals as quickly as is reasonably possible. It is important that we get such things right. Equally, as I said, despite the fact that our overall record is better than that of many other countries, today, like every other day, nine or 10 people will be killed on our roads, and many of those accidents are avoidable.
	There is no single solution to reducing the number of road accidents, and the right approach relies on a number of different measures. That is what we are doing: we are continuing to implement measuresfor example, more local safety schemes. We are continuing to roll out the safety camera programme. We are involved in the greater promotion of road safety under the Think! advertising campaign. Indeed, a new phase of the television advertising campaign is starting today in relation to speed.
	We are also considering measures that can improve the dreadful statistics on motor cycle accidents. Although motor cyclists account for 1 per cent. of road users, they account for 20 per cent. of deaths and serious injuries on the roads. In particular, there is a need to get across to people who use motor cycles, sometimes infrequently, the fact that, used the wrong way, motor cycles can cause the death of the motor cyclist and, indeed, other road users.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: One of the problems in the rural area that I represent is that websites are now challenging motor cyclists to compete at high speed in a circuit. We lost five motor cyclists in fatal crashes in the area last year. We have tried to get the websites shut down, with the help of the Home Secretary, but have failed. Will the Secretary of State please look to see whether we can do something about such things, which are killing people?

Alistair Darling: We are aware of those websites, and many hon. Members will have seen them. The problem is that people are encouraged to use motor cyclessometimes they are not used to riding powerful machinesin places where they are led to believe that they can go fast, when there is some sort of challenge, and they end up killing themselves and others. As I said, motor cyclists account for 20 per cent. of deaths and serious injuries on the roads. Over the past year or so, the statistics have been going the wrong way and there has been a rise in the number of motor cyclists killed or seriously injured.
	The hon. Gentleman knows that stopping people putting things on websites is easier said than done. There is sometimes a fine line between what is acceptable and unacceptable. I am aware that in constituencies such as the hon. Gentleman's and others, especially if people visit them at weekends and so on, there has been an alarming rise in motor cycle deaths. The Government take that seriously, as should society. It is not just about the individuals involved, but about others as well.

David Taylor: There have been motor cycling fatalities in my constituency in recent months. Has my right hon. Friend considered the suggestion of Brake and other organisations that we should re-test born-again bikers, as they are sometimes called, who take up motor bike riding after a period of inactivity, to ensure that they have appropriate and up-to-date experience for the bike they ride? Will he also consider the role of protective clothing, which would help to reduce the number of serious injuries?

Alistair Darling: My hon. Friend may be aware that motor cycling organisations have put a number of proposals to the Government, one of which is a further test before someone drives a larger or more powerful motor bike. When I first looked at this matter I was surprised to find that someone such as me, who has held a driving licence for 30 years and has never driven a motor bike, could buy a powerful machine and ride off on it tomorrow morning. The chances are that if I was not used to it I could get into difficulties. We want to consider that. I am bound to say to my hon. Friend, however, that I do not know how we would decide whether someone was a born-again motor cyclist as opposed to another sort of motor cyclist.
	We must tread a fine line between allowing people to enjoy what can be the extremely pleasurable activity of using their motor bikes while at the same time protecting them and road users. I again remind the House that motor cyclists account for 1 per cent. of road users but 20 per cent. of deaths and serious injuries. If we are serious about making further inroads into road casualties, we need to consider that. Like everything else, none of these things is without difficulties. However, my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to those suggestions.
	There are three strands to the Bill, the first of which addresses the problem of bad or irresponsible driving through better detection, better enforcement and more effective penalties. The second clamps down on motorists who break the lawfor example, by driving without insurance or using cars, vans or lorries that are unroadworthy. The third, of course, raises driving standards and improves awareness through better education and training.

Gerry Steinberg: I suspect that, like me, every Member of Parliament has had a constituent who was killed by someone driving dangerously. With great respect to the Secretary of State, it is all right being sympathetic but, frankly, the Government do not take notice of Back Benchers. My hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Murphy) outlined his incident. I can give one exactly the same.
	We have debated the subject in the Chamber and Westminster Hall. We have received sympathy all along the line from Home Secretaries. I have met two Home Secretaries in the past four years and still nothing is being done. Week after week, our constituents are murdered by criminals on the road. It is not good enough for the Secretary of State to give us sympathy. We are not after that. We are after justice. It is about time that it was recognised that virtually every Member of Parliament wants something done about people who break the law in their cars and murder our constituents. It is like allowing them to do what they like with a gun.

Alistair Darling: I do not disagree with my hon. Friend. I said earlier that I find it difficult to make an intellectual differentiation between a person who sets out with a gun and shoots someone and a person who drives irresponsibly or dangerously and ends up killing someone. I said that the penalties for causing death by dangerous driving have been increased, but I do not agree with my hon. Friend that nothing has been happening. Although deaths have been increased slightly, serious injuries have fallen. We have introduced a range of measures, and there are further measures in the Bill that I hope to discuss in the not too distant future which will help. Three things are necessaryeducation and awareness; making sure that there is the right range of offences and penalties; andthis is not in the hands of the House and the Governmentensuring that people who administer the judicial system use the available powers so that if someone kills someone else, as my hon. Friend described, an appropriate penalty is visited on them. Road traffic offences should not be regarded as lesser offences. People are often left with the impression that although a death has been caused the perpetrator is dealt with quite differently from someone who sets out with a gun or something else.

Rob Marris: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Alistair Darling: I am mindful of the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), and would like to make progress. I shall try, however, to let everyone who wishes to intervene do so.
	The first strand in the Bill tackles bad or reckless standards of driving. Research has shown that driver behaviour is a key factor in about half of all car fatalities. Excessive speeding needs to be addressed, because over 1,000 people are killed and over 38,000 are seriously injured every year as a result of speeding. The use of safety cameras is controversial and has been the subject of a great deal of discussion in the House over the past year. However, I repeat that cameras are one way of addressing speeding and road safety, provided that they are effectively placed. The latest independent research, which I presented to the House last June, shows that there has been a 40 per cent. reduction in deaths and serious injuries at safety camera sites. Cameras are, of course, only one of a number of measures, but we are right to continue a policy introduced by the previous Governmentuntil fairly recently, it received bipartisan supportas all the evidence shows that cameras reduce accidents.
	Research suggests that the greatest reduction in road casualties would result from reducing excessive speeding. The Bill allows us to vary the system of penalty points to see what can be done further to discourage people from speeding excessively. That is controversial, so I shall I shall say a word about it. The Bill allows for a graduated structure of fixed penalty points. It does not introduce them, but it allows us, after statutory consultation, to introduce an order that would provide for a variable system of penalty points and fines. I made it clear in the preliminary discussion document that we published last September that there should be a variable system of penalty points and fines to make sure that the punishment fits the nature of the crime.

Several hon. Members: rose

Alistair Darling: I said that there would be interest in the matter, and I am happy to deal with all the points that my hon. Friends wish to make. However, first, I shall make two points. The Bill allows for a system of graduation, and the preliminary discussion document showed that a majority of people thought that a graduated system of penalty points was a good thing. It is fair to say that there is a division about how that graduation should work. The Bill, however, makes it possible to introduce a graduated system, which is essential. Once the Bill has become law, we will have a discussion about the nature of the scheme.

Rob Marris: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his patience. A pedestrian hit at 20 mph has a 95 per cent. chance of survival, one hit at 30 mph has a 50 per cent. chance of survival, but one hit at 40 mph has a 10 per cent. chance of survival. I support the concept of graduated fixed penalties but, under clause 16, the Secretary of State seems to be suggesting a reduction in the penalty for some speeding from three points to two points. I am bemused by that, particularly in the light of what he said this afternoon about the seriousness with which he views speeding and the death that can result. The House might send the wrong message if it dropped the penalty for speeding from three to two points.

Alistair Darling: Last September, I made it clear that I think it important that any penalty regime distinguishes between somebody who is just over the speed limit and somebody who had driven far too fast, especially in built-up areas. The point that I made then, which I repeat today, is that if someone is not caught by a speed camera, but is instead sent to court, the court itself makes that distinction, depending on the circumstances.
	It comes down to whether or not we believe that by having a two-point penalty and a 40 fine, as opposed to a three-point penalty and a 60 fine, drivers will say, Oh, it is all right. I don't care. Most drivers start with the assumption that they do not want any penalty points or any fines. The point of the discussion document, which I introduced to find out people's views, was to see whether support exists for graduation, and the answer is yes.
	Outside built-up areas, there is less of an argument, but in built-up areas people ask, Is it right to impose a two-point penalty and a 30 to 40 mph speed limit? Having considered that question for some weeks, the matter turns on whether people believe that a two-point penalty, as opposed to a three-point penalty, means that someone will be more likely to speedin other words, the difference is one point. I take a different view from my hon. Friend's and happen to believe that the proposal that I introduced in September is right.
	Today, we are dealing with a Bill that allows graduation. Some peoplenot, I think, the majoritysay no graduation at all, and their position is straightforward. After the Bill is enacted, we will be obliged to consult by statute. People must be able to see fairness and proportion in all laws, but I do not believe that the one-point difference that we are discussing, will mean that lots of people say, Well, it is all right to break a 30 mph speed limit. I do not think that I am being inconsistentI would say thatbut I understand my hon. Friend's point.

Andrew Miller: I want to push my right hon. Friend on that point. In the context of clause 16, is he therefore saying that he is open to persuasion that the arguments set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) might be a better solution than his initial feeling that a move down is possible? Is he open to persuasion, or is he taking a fixed view at this stage?

Alistair Darling: It will clearly be for the Secretary of State to decide the Government's final view after the Bill has been enacted. Last September, I recognised that the issue is controversial, but I thought that my proposal was fairer and more appropriate. However, it is self-evident that not only Second Reading, but Committee and the rest of the proceedings should be used to raise those issues in the House of Commons, and I am sure that my hon. Friend and others will make their views clear.
	At the moment, my view remains that my proposal from last September is reasonable, but we must consult formally, and when we consult there will be a specific proposal which will allow everybody concerned, whether organisations or individuals, to come forward, and the House will form a view. Throughout the past year or so, speed cameras have been a controversial issue. People understand that a balance must be struck between being fair to all of us, including those of us who drive, and remembering the purpose of speed cameras, which is to save lives. That point underpins my whole approach. We have to be fair and take people with us, but let us not lose sight of the fact that speed cameras do save lives and reduce serious injury. It is good that since we published the figures last summer we have heard rather less of the hysterical talk about removing every speed camera wherever it is.
	The Bill has other provisions on developing and using retraining courses for more serious speeding offences. They are based on the successful drink-drive rehabilitation schemes and are set out in clauses 24 and 25.

Sally Keeble: Can my right hon. Friend tell us about the Government's thinking on drink-driving, especially in relation to discussions with the Home Office about increased sentences for drink-driving and increased sanctions for uninsured or even unlicensed drivers, as in the major problem of kids taking cars and joyriding?

Alistair Darling: I will move on to insurance and roadworthy vehicles in a moment.
	Drink-driving is obviously a matter of major concern, and we continue to have discussions with colleagues in the Home Office in relation to that offence. It is worth bearing in mind the fact that despite all the campaigns of the past 30 years, alcohol is a factor in nearly one in seven of all fatal crashesthat is, nearly 500 deaths a year. That must be dealt with. Up to 20 per cent. of those drink-drive convictions concern the cases that my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms   Keeble) is particularly worried about, involving repeat offenders who are predominantly younger male drivers. We must not only improve education, but improve detection and increase the number of people who are caught drinking and driving.

David Kidney: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Alistair Darling: I want to set out what we are doing, and then I will give way to my hon. Friend.
	The Bill provides for the introduction of roadside evidential breath-testing, which is far more efficientit avoids the visit to the police station and saves police timeand more effective. There is a secondary power under which we intend to make repeat drink-driving offendersfor instance, someone who is automatically banned for three years after a second convictionretake their driving tests. That is justified. We are also making provisions concerning serious offenders in relation to their medical examinations, as there is a loophole there that needs to be closed. Finally, we are allowing for the future use of alcohol ignition interlocks, which have been shown to be effective in discouraging reoffenders in other countries. Those provisions are set out in clauses 14 and 15.

David Kidney: I support those three measures.
	In 1998, when the Department for Transport was part of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, it estimated that lowering the legal limit from 80 to 50 would save about 50 lives a year. Has my right hon. Friend's Department updated that estimate to today?

Alistair Darling: We continually keep the level of the limit under review. Most of the people with whom we deal are way above 80. Obviously, if the limit were lowered additional people would, by definition, be caught by it. However, at the moment the Government believe that the right level is 80. We always keep such matters under review. I am very conscious of the fact that our problem in this country, sadly, is that people are often not just over the limitthere would be a stronger argument for a reduction if we were catching a lot of people on 82 or 85but way over the limit. The people we must really have a go at are those who do not just do it once but are caught and second and a third time. The bigger problem, which I suspect would occur even were the limit dropped to, say, 50, concerns the people who believe that they can have one or two drinks and it will be all right. In some cases it is not all right.
	For a long time, I thought that we were reaching a situation in which drinking and driving would become socially unacceptablethat people simply would not put up with it and peer group pressure would take effect. Sadly, however, there appears to be a trend, especially among younger people, of saying, It doesn't matter. We need to get it across to people that drinking and driving can kill the driver, the driver's friends and others. We will keep the level under review but the Government currently believe that it is set at the right amount and have no plans to change it.

Peter Bottomley: I believe that the Government are right to keep that under review and not to make a change. Since 1979, the number of deaths that have occurred when the driver or rider is above the existing legal limit has decreased from approximately 1,800 a year to around 500. Even if the lower limit would bring the drivers involved in another 50 deaths into the ambit of the law, it is far better, as the Secretary of State said, to concentrate on those who are over the current legal limit or have consumed twice that. Cultural change needs to continue so that drink driving does not go on even at its current rate.
	Will the right hon. Gentleman report to the House if it transpires that countries with a lower legal limit turn out to have fewer drink driving deaths than us? While we continue to have fewer deaths than those countries, it is better to continue with an effective policy rather than do things that simply change numbers, not behaviour.

Alistair Darling: I should certainly report to the House if such evidence emerged. However, the evidence, especially in continental Europe, does not show fewer deaths. My counterpart in France has been here to see what we do, because drinking and driving in France is a serious offence. Some countries in other parts of Europe have lower limits but no automatic disqualification. Drinking and driving is so important that it is right to signify our concern and disapproval through automatic disqualification of someone who is caught doing it. Of course, we will examine evidence not only from the rest of Europe but other parts of the world.
	Two things will make a difference. The first is repeating the message that drinking and driving can kill. Secondly, if people believe that they are more likely to get caught than not, it concentrates the mind wonderfully. I therefore welcome the fact that many chief constables are turning their attention to the matter and recognising that it is a problem that needs to be tackled and regarded as seriously as other crimes.
	I said that the Bill will increase penalties. The penalty for careless driving will increase from 2,500 to 5,000. Driving using a hand-held mobile phone will become an endorsable offence. We will also unify the penalties for seat-belt offences in relation to children. There is currently a lesser penalty for not wearing a seat belt in the back seat than for not wearing one in the front seat. There is no good reason for that. We will also introduce a mandatory disqualification for a second offence of using a vehicle in a dangerous condition.
	We believe that those measures taken together will send a clear message to those who persist in driving recklessly or irresponsibly.
	The second strand of measures clamps down on drivers who do not respect the rules of the road. Recent research has shown that unlicensed drivers are six to nine times more likely to have an accident than drivers with road tax. We need to deal more effectively with the one in 20 drivers who currently drive without insurance. We know from experience that they are high risk drivers who impose costs on the rest of us and can also cost lives. That is why the Bill includes several provisions to tighten up the regime.
	The Bill will enable the police to make use of data already held by the motor insurance industry about vehicles that are not insured. Furthermore, for the first time, the police will be given the power to seize and dispose of vehicles that are uninsured, as part of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill, which is currently in Committee.

Louise Ellman: Does the Secretary of State accept that, although it is important to change the law to ensure that the Data Protection Act 1998 does not impede fining people who drive unlicensed or uninsured, it is equally important that people who operate the system are aware of the law? When the Select Committee took evidence on that, we found a great deal of confusion about the state of the law.

Alistair Darling: There is much to be said for clarity about the law, no matter what subject we tackle, but I agree with my hon. Friend and we clearly need to attend to the problem. It is important to stress that, shortly, especially when the MOT computerisation programme is completed, the police will be able to tell whether a car has got its MOT, whether it is taxed and whether the driver is insured. That information has not hitherto been available on a database to police officers, but it will be shortly. This will cut down on evasion. It will also make it easier for the police to take action if they find someone driving without insurance, a licence or an MOT.

Kevin Brennan: Will the Secretary of State consider the problem of people who seek to avoid more serious charges by failing to identify who was driving a vehicle at the time of an incident? In a recent case, a constituent of mine, Tony Davies, was the innocent victim of a road traffic accident in which the two people in the other vehicle refused to identify who had been driving and got off with a lighter charge as a result. What plans does the Secretary of State have to deal with this issue?

Alistair Darling: The Bill contains provisions to deal with that problem. Failure to disclose who was driving will result in a penalty of six points. My hon. Friend is right; at the moment, it might be open to a serious offender to refuse to identify who had been driving because they could get off with a lesser penalty as a result.
	We wish also to provide a new system of endorsement of driving licences that will allow non-Great Britain licence holders to be given fixed penalties for traffic offences. We are also seeking powers that would allow the police and other officers to take a deposit from non-GB licence holders in lieu of a fixed penalty, or pending a court hearing. This will ensure that overseas truck drivers do not escape punishment when they commit offences, as can happen too easily now. We are also seeking the power to enable the disclosure of driver and vehicle data to foreign authorities, when that would be important.

Sally Keeble: In regard to HGV drivers coming from abroad, will there be any discussions in Europe to ensure that the requirements are equalised? I am referring in particular to the restriction on insulin-dependent diabetics.

Alistair Darling: Yes, such discussions are continuing with a view to reaching an agreement on those issues. As traffic between this country and the rest of Europe increases, it is only sensible to try to ensure that people are treated in the same way. We particularly want to avoid a situation in which, for very good reasons, someone could be dealt with quite strictly here but could escape if they went elsewhere. This would benefit all the countries involved, and those discussions are taking place at the moment.

David Marshall: Further to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) has just made on HGVs, the Secretary of State has not yet mentioned any measures relating to these vehicles. They are involved in a high number of accidents, especially during the night. These accidents often involve side impacts, and many of the drivers involved have said that this is because they did not see the HGV until it was too late. Has my right hon. Friend seen the evidence submitted by the organisation Reflect, which calls for ECE 104 to become mandatory in the UK? This would require retro-reflective markings to be fitted to the sides of all HGVs. Does he accept that this is a good suggestion, and that that provision should be introduced throughout the whole of the EU?

Alistair Darling: I have seen some of that evidence, and I know that it has been considered in Germany in particular. My understanding is that the evidence is still being evaluated, and that it is not overwhelming. However, the Government will look very seriously at anything that would reduce the number of accidents involving HGVs. My hon. Friend is right to say that HGVs are involved in a number of accidents, and we need to consider what we can do to reduce that number.
	The Bill will give the police and other authorities greater powers to deal with problems on the roads. This is supported by a strategy published this morning by my Department and the Home Office, which reaffirms road policing as a priority area.
	The last strand of the Bill contains measures to improve driving standards, which is one of the most important elements of what we are doing. It is a fact that young and newly qualified drivers have a greater likelihood of being involved in an accident in their first year of driving. Indeed, one in five accidents involve a driver who has passed their test in the preceding year. Furthermore, 17 to 21-year-olds represent about 6 per cent. of licence holders, yet they are involved in about 12 per cent. of all injury accidents.
	The Bill will put in place measures to provide for higher standards for professional driving instructors and to regulate driving schools, including not only those who give instruction, but franchisees as well as employees. The aim is to ensure that drivers and riders of all types of motor vehicles are tested in accordance with the demands of today's traffic conditions.
	In conclusion, the Bill will help to create a safer and fairer environment for motorists. It will provide additional protection for all road users, but especially the more vulnerable groups of pedestrians and cyclists.

David Drew: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Alistair Darling: I shall take one further point, and then I think that I shall stop.

David Drew: My right hon. Friend has not really mentioned the impact of motorists' road safety on pedestrians and cyclists. When cyclists are involved in road accidents, it is always up to them to prove that a motorist was the guilty partyone presumes innocence before guiltbut that can often be difficult. What additional measures will be put in place to protect cyclists and give them fair chances?

Alistair Darling: My law might be a bit rusty because it is 18 years since I practised it, but I think that it is always necessary to prove the guilt of anyone involved in a road accident, so not only cyclists face that problem. My hon. Friend is right that we want to improve the safety of cyclists, and several measures in the Bill will help to do that, although they are not specifically aimed at cyclists. Education and other measures can help to improve cyclists' safety. The onus of proof, however, applies to all road accidents, as it does to any other crime.

Harry Barnes: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Alistair Darling: I think that I had better stop, or the House, and especially my hon. Friend the Member forWest Carmarthen and South Pembrokeshire (Mr. Ainger), will get very cross.
	The Bill contains many measures that will improve road safety, but I come back to a point that I made at the start of my speech: legislation is only one part of what we need to do. We must raise awareness and give courts the tools to deal with people who offend. We need to express the view that the courts will do their duty when people appear before them. The one thing that should unite us allI was struck by this the last time we discussed railway accidentsis that 10 people will die today in road accidents, so 10 sets of families and friends will lose someone. It should weigh heavily with us that most such accidents are avoidable, so the country would expect the Government and the House to do everything possible to reduce the unacceptably large number of people who are killed every single day. I hope that everyone will support the Bill.

Tim Yeo: To begin on a note of consensus, let me say that the Conservative party entirely shares the concerns that the Secretary of State and other hon. Members have expressed about road safety. For that reason, I am happy to make it clear at the outset that we will not divide the House on Second Reading, although my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) and I will set out several changes and additions that should be made to the Bill, which we will try to achieve during its passage, especially in Committee.
	Let me make some general remarks about road safety that pick up where the Secretary of State left off. We share the concerns expressed. However, despite the progress made over the years to reduce casualties in Britain and the fact that we are doing better than many European countries, we need to give the matter more attention. Although I have shadowed many briefs over the past seven years and served in several Government Departments, this is the first time that I have dealt directly with transport issues, and I am startled by our inconsistent attitude towards different types of transport.
	If 300 people were killed in a railway accident there would be a huge public outcry and a major investigation, which would almost certainly be followed by policy change. If an aircraft accident caused the same number of deaths, there would be a detailed investigation, procedures would be examined and training and qualification standards would be overhauled. If a cross-channel ferry sank with the loss of 300 lives, the most detailed inquiry would be held. But when 300 people die on the roads, pretty well nothing is done, despite the fact that 300 people die on our roads every month. All we seem to do is shrug our shoulders. Perhaps that extraordinary tolerance of road casualties is partly because they happen so often. Whatever the reason, it is not in any way a rational response.
	Dismissing road casualties as the inevitable consequence of driver error does not make sense. Every casualty represents a personal tragedy. The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe) referred earlier to the tragic case of Alexine Melnik, whose father copied the letter that he wrote to him to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch. It is a moving document describing the tragic circumstances of his daughter's death and the unsatisfactory outcome of the case, with the verdict that it was an accident caused by a momentary lapse of concentration. As Mr. Melnik points out,
	Isn't a car travelling at speed a lethal weapon and in every respect to be considered the same as a loaded gun?
	If someone had been carrying a loaded gun, and had accidentally shot and killed an innocent bystander, would that person face a charge of carrying a gun without due care and attention? Would the court have accepted a claim of a momentary lapse of concentration so readily? I am sure that Members on both sides of the House will have had similar cases brought to their attention, and that we all feel as strongly as those who intervened on the Secretary of State during his speech.
	The problem relates not only to drivers. The AA EuroRAP results show that driver error is not the only main factor. Some roads are much more dangerous than others. Imagine the horror that would rightly be expressed if the Strategic Rail Authorityor, soon, its successor bodieswere to publish a table showing that one was far more likely to be killed on a train travelling between Slough and Swindon than on one travelling between Milton Keynes and Rugby. That would not be tolerated for a moment. What would happen if the Civil Aviation Authority revealed data showing that some airports had consistently more aircraft crashing than others? Rightly, neither public opinion, nor the airlines, nor their customers, nor the authorities or anyone else, would accept that position. Yet that is exactly what we seem willing to accept on the roads.
	Let me make it clear: the next Conservative Government will not accept that. In my first year in office, if I am Secretary of State for Transport

Henry Bellingham: Hear, hear.

Tim Yeo: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is true that opinion polls are not yet making that the racing certainty to which I look forward, but we are not quite in extra time yet. If that happy eventuality comes about, however, and the British people have something to celebrate later in the year, I will require the relevant authorities, the Highways Agency and others, to assess what steps can be taken to reduce accident rates on roads classified as high riskmarked in black on the AA EuroRAP map. In the first full term of a Conservative Government, we will extend that requirement to all roads classified as medium-high risk, which are shown in red on the same map.

Kelvin Hopkins: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that overriding powers should determine speed limitsfor example, on roads that cross a local government boundary, as in my constituency where the limit moves from 40 mph to 30 mph on the same road, because separate local authorities are involved? Would he suggest that there should be some overriding power above local authorities?

Tim Yeo: I am suggesting that we have clear data showing that some roadshappily, a relatively small numberare much more dangerous than others. We need to try to analyse what steps could be taken, and the hon. Gentleman may have just suggested one of them. I do not know whether changes in speed limit, for reasons such as he has described, are a factor on those high-risk roads. Given that we know that some roads are much more high risk than others, it is worth exploring whether simple stepssuch as the one that he suggests, perhapscould be taken to reduce those risks. I am sure that we would do that with any other transport mode, and we ought to start doing it with roads. Tolerating the idea that some roads are more dangerous than others seems simply unacceptable.
	Data about other fatalities also need to be addressed. Young male drivers are five times more likely to be killed than middle-aged drivers. That is a horrifying statistic, and it is probably due less to inferior driving skills than to the attitudes adopted by some young male drivers once they are behind the wheel. I recall from my student days the circumstances in which fatalities might be higher than average. Particular concern arises when young males are driving with members of their peer group as passengers. Nothing in the Bill appears to address those challenges, which is a pity. Is it not time to explore new ways of encouraging more responsible driving by young men?

Tim Loughton: What my hon. Friend says is absolutely true. The Secretary of State has been dealing largely with people who are insured and qualified to drive, but many accidents are caused by people, mainly young people, who are flouting the law by driving in the first place. They are actively encouraged by magazines and websites to save the money that could be spent on insurance for souping up their cars. Not enough is being done to clamp down on alterations that are made to cars: it is apparently still legal to soup up engines with nitrous oxide. People who are simply not capable of dealing with such powerful motors go out and flout the law, and get away with it.

Tim Yeo: That is an important point. I am sure that the encouragement that some newly qualified young drivers may receive from a variety of sources to act in the way described by my hon. Friend is one element of the problem. Another, of course, is the fact that penalties for driving without insurance are often lower than the cost of obtaining insurance. A number of issues need to be dealt with and, as I say, the Government do not seem to be taking sufficiently urgent notice of themin the Bill or elsewhere.

David Taylor: Should there not be a graduated system of driver licensing? Although the current arrangements have rightly been strengthened in recent years, they could be toughened even further by means of a two-stage approach. The first stage would restrict the size of vehicle that could be driven and the number of passengers carried; secondly, driving at night could be prohibited. One driver in 10 is under 25, and one in four who are killed is under 25. As the hon. Gentleman says, there is an important link to be investigated.

Tim Yeo: That is an interesting suggestion. I think that we should adopt an evidence-based approach. If data suggest that particular types of driver are particularly prone to certain accidents, we may be able to identify measuressuch as graduated licensingto tackle that. I think that the Secretary of State accepted the principle when he expressed surprise at the idea that, with his existing driving licence and many years' experience of driving a car, he could get on to a very powerful motor cycle and would not be restricted from engaging in what might be a more risky activityalthough I am sure that in the Secretary of State's case, it would not be. I have observed his measured approach to these and other issues over the past nine months or so, and I am sure that if he got on to a very powerful motor cycle, it would be equally measured.
	The hon. Gentleman's general point is valid. I think that the public are ready to accept such changes, and there is recognition that by adopting an evidence-based approach we could reduce the risk. Some of the points made in the Transport Committee's report Traffic Law and its Enforcement, published last autumn, reflect his thinking.
	I have touched on the twin problems of roads that are more dangerous than the average and drivers who are more accident prone than the average. If the Government are to adopt a more comprehensive strategy, and if we are to reduce the number of people killed and seriously injured on the roads, they must accept that measures to tackle those problems directly will be needed.
	A hollow laugh will greet the statement issued by the Secretary of State this morningand referred to, albeit briefly, in his speechabout a new strategy for policing the roads. The Conservative party strongly supports the use of more police to tackle illegal and antisocial use of the roads, but this is the Government who have cut the number of traffic officers by 1,500 since they came to power. In 1999, traffic officers were conveniently redefined to include operational and organisational support officers, who are employed to perform functions other than being out on the streets. The actual number of operational traffic officers, mainly on motor cycles or in patrol vehicles, has dropped even furtherperhaps by between a quarter and a thirdsince 1997.
	That really is a scandal, and it is, I am afraid, one reason why the public now have such low regard for Ministers. The Secretary of State, who really should know better, is making a grossly misleading attempt to claim that he is doing something to address the problem through an initiative. Actually, the fact that there are fewer traffic officers enforcing the law and making our roads safer is entirely the result of this Government's policies.

Henry Bellingham: My hon. Friend has hit on an important issue that affects rural areas in particular, where people want the security of seeing bobbies on the beat and road traffic police. Does he agree that if more road traffic police are around, fewer people will take the risk of drinking and driving?

Tim Yeo: That is beyond doubt. Indeed, the likelihood of being caught drink-drivingI shall deal with that issue in a momentis one of the most effective deterrents to taking such risks.

Rob Marris: The hon. Gentleman mentioned using the EuroRAP map, which indicates in black the roads with a higher incidence of such problems. Do he and his party support the deployment of safety camerasthey are often called speed camerasin rural and urban areas?

Tim Yeo: I shall come to cameras in a moment, but the simple answer is that where cameras can be sited so as to reduce accidents, we of course support their use. I wholeheartedly endorse the aim of reducing the unnecessarily high number of deaths and serious injuries on our roads, and cameras situated in the right position can contribute to that process.
	The Bill contains a number of measures that are desirable in their own right, and will have our support. Overall, however, it is something of a hotch-potch of measures, rather than an absolutely coherent approach to the problem. It contains provisions directed specifically at the problem of drink-driving, and the Government are right to be concerned about that issue. The steady progress made in cutting the number of casualties resulting from drink-driving accidents seems to have halted in the past decade or so, which must be a cause for concern. I agree with the Secretary of State that more effective enforcement of existing drink-driving limits is essential if such progress is to be restarted, and we will want to explore how that can be done in more detail in Committee.
	A central part of the problem is that, even according to the Government's own figures, the number of traffic police will still be lower in future than it was originally. As my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) has just pointed out, if drivers feel that there is less chance of being caught, the likelihood of their offending, hoping that they can get away with it, is clearly greater. More will take the risk, and sadly, more casualties will occur.
	Of course, driving under the influence does not just mean drink-driving. Drugs are also an issue, which my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch will pursue later in the Bill's passage.

Henry Bellingham: What does my hon. Friend, who is making an excellent speech, think about increasing the powers of the police so that they can stop people randomly on the basis of suspected drink-driving? I have a reasonably open mind on the issue, but most chief constables would like greater flexibility in that regard.

Tim Yeo: It is clear that we must take the views of chief constables extremely seriously. I, too, have an open mind on that issue, and I am not quite sure which way the evidence points. If such powers would be one effective way of reducing the number of people who drink-drive, or of increasing the number who get caught doing so, they deserve to be supported. However, I have not seen the evidence, so I am agnostic and open to being convinced.

David Kidney: I hope to argue later that we should reduce the legal limit from 80 mg to 50 mg. What is the view of the hon. Gentleman and his party on that issue?

Tim Yeo: I share the Secretary of State's view. The priority is to concentrate on people who are well above the limit, and on repeat offenders. If we are to devote more effort to this issue, I suspect that diverting some of it to stopping people whose blood alcohol level is between 50 mg and 80 mg will prove an ineffective use of resources.
	If our aim, shared across both sides of the House, is to cut casualties from drink-driving and elsewhere, we have to be hard-headed about where we make the greatest effort, and I suspect that it makes more sense to focus on repeat offenders and those who are well over the limit than to opt for a slightly lower target. I believe that that is also the Secretary of State's view, and that of my hon. Friends as well. Let me emphasise that I approach the matter from a completely pragmatic point of view. I want progress to be made, and if it became clear that the hon. Gentleman's suggestion was the best way to make progress, I would have no objection to it in principle.
	On speeding, I am delighted that the Government have adopted some Conservative party policies. Widening the range of penalty points that can be imposed for speeding offences is a good idea, and I am glad that the Government have seen the light. I wonder whether we could persuade the Secretary of State to go one step further. His Back Benchers expressed considerable interest in the idea, and it could be dealt with most effectively if we put directly into the Bill the range of speeds leading to different penalties, and the circumstances in which differential penalty points would be imposed. That would allow Parliament to be the arbiter, and there would be no uncertainty about it. I hope to pursue that point in Committee.

Harry Barnes: On speeding, I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman is going to mention clause 17, which deals with detection devices. It proposes a way to deal with the jamming of the police ability to detect whether speeding has occurred, and the ability to ascertain whether a speed detector is in the area. That is a valuable measure, but proposals advanced in legislation sometimes have unseen side-effects. Mark Cornwall, a constituent who runs Derby Car Parts Direct, told me that the firm, dealing in radar detector provision, will finish when the legislation comes into force. Yet it has developed technology that might be valuable and helpful in other respects. Perhaps the Secretary of State could help such firms to switch away from producing equipment that will become illegal, into legal products. That would be valuable.

Tim Yeo: That intervention seems to be directed towards the future, when I am the Secretary of State. I would be pleased to help, but at the moment it is more a matter for the present Secretary of State. I shall refer to those devices in a few moments, and I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on finding a good opportunity to argue a case on behalf of a firm in his constituency.
	One of my concerns about our general approach to speeding is that it too often appears to be unrelated to an assessment of the risk. We have argued for lower speed limits to reduce accidents in certain areasclose to schools, for example. At the same time, in my judgment, few things do more to bring traffic laws into disrepute than rigidly enforced 24-hour limits of 50 mph on a four or six-lane dual carriageway. Given the good safety record of many motorways and trunk roads, it is surely time to consider raising the upper limit to 80 mph in certain places.

Tim Loughton: I want to return to the issue of the big reduction in the number of traffic police, which has gone largely unnoticed. I agree with my hon. Friend that we need lower speed limits, such as exist in 20 mph home zones, in school areas and residential areas with elderly people, of which there are many in my constituencybut part of the problem is that they are not enforceable. The traffic police are not there to enforce those speed limits, just as they are not there to advise on traffic safety. This is not just a question of their being there on motorbikes with speed cameras; it is also about their advising on the setting of speed limits. The traffic police are no longer there. I endorse a more flexible approach, but that can work only without such a ridiculous reliance on the broad-brush approach to speed cameras, at the expense of experienced police traffic professionals.

Tim Yeo: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is a well-founded suspicion that the Government strategy hitherto has been to encourage a proliferation of speed cameras to conceal the damage inflicted by cuts of between a quarter and a third in the number of operational traffic officers. As he says, that makes it much harder to introduce the more common-sense, risk-based and flexible approach to speed limits that we believe would go a long way to promoting safety and to winning public acceptance. A more flexible policy is the key, and the changes that I have suggested should be introduced in the context of a review of all speed limits.
	It is well known that we share the concerns of those people who believe that in too many areas speed cameras are being used for revenue-raising purposes, and that they are not sited to achieve the maximum reduction in accidents. Because of that, once in government we will carry out an audit of all speed cameras to make sure that they are positioned where their impact will genuinely contribute to greater safety. Meanwhile, we should like two changes to be made to the Bill.
	The first change relates to clause 17, to which the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) referred. It deals with devices that detect the presence of equipment used to assess the speed of motor vehicles, and with other devices that jam that equipment. I draw a distinction between those two types of device, and have no objection to the proposed measures against devices that jam. However, devices that detect the presence of speed equipment belong to a different category. If the Government believe their claims that speed cameras are sited so that they slow down traffic in places where accidents are likely to occur, it is clearly helpful for drivers to have advance warning of them, as they will then approach high-risk sections of road at a moderate speed. The only reason to outlaw detection devices is that the number of drivers who might get caught for speeding would be reduced, with the result that the revenue generated by speed cameras would be cut.

Louise Ellman: Will the hon. Gentleman explain his hostility to speed cameras? Independent evidence shows that they can reduce the number of accidents by about 40 per cent?

Tim Yeo: As I have said already, my proposal is that we should audit the position of speed cameras. Where they cut accidents, we are delighted about the contribution that they make, but I remain unpersuaded that every speed camera is sited in such a position. The proposal in clause 17 to outlaw devices that can detect speed cameras exposes the true intentions behind the positioning of many of them.
	Another aspect of the Bill is relevant in this respect. The Bill provides opportunities to make sure that speed cameras promote safety. We could table a new clause to abolish the so-called safety camera partnerships, which serve no real purpose. If the speed cameras were operated by traffic police, it is more likely that they would be situated where they would genuinely prevent accidents. It would also mean that a higher proportion of the money paid in fines would be used by the traffic police to promote road safety in general.

Mark Lazarowicz: Those of us who have followed these debates will recall that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), challenged one of the predecessors of the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) to give examples of speed cameras being sited in places where they would raise money rather than promote road safety. I challenge the hon. Gentleman now to give the House an example of a speed camera that has been placed in a certain spot just to raise money.

Tim Yeo: That will be one of the purposes of an audit. As I have stressed throughout, my approach is pragmatic. I want the siting of cameras to be based on evidence. If the hon. Gentleman wants me to search the country for examples of cameras placed solely to raise money, I have no doubt that my e-mail would be jammed within 24 hours with messages from people offering such examples, and I should be happy to forward any such messages to him.
	The benefits of a new approach to speed cameras would be enjoyed not just by responsible, safe drivers. The police would be pleased as well. The Police Federation has pointed out that current policy on the use of cameras has damaged relations between the police and drivers. The police would like to see a balance between automatic devices such as cameras, and properly trained policea balance that we wholeheartedly support. They point out that speed cameras do not detect drivers who have been drinking, uninsured drivers, under-age or unlicensed drivers. If our roads are genuinely to be made safer, traffic police cannot be replaced by cameras, as the Government seem to have tried to do in the past few years.

Andrew Miller: Cameras do detect drivers who are breaking the law. Surely the hon. Gentleman does not accept that those drivers should be breaking the law.

Tim Yeo: I am not suggesting that at all. I should like drivers to be deterred from breaking the law, not just detected when they do so. I come back to the point about clause 17. I am puzzled as to why the Government think it is a good idea to outlaw a device that might encourage a driver to obey the law.
	I shall move on to the topic of mobile phones.

Ian Lucas: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tim Yeo: No, I must make progress. I am mindful of the understandable concern expressed by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) in a point of order at the start of the debate.
	Clause 22 as drafted has the effect, in relation to mobile phones, of introducing a more onerous regime for motorists than for cyclists. Superficially, that may seem to be justified. A car can do a great deal more damage to pedestrians and other cars than a bicycle can, but that does not mean that cyclists do no damage at all. The growing frequency with which cyclists ignore red traffic lights or cycle along pavements means that for pedestrians, especially vulnerable pedestrians such as children, elderly people and disabled people, cyclists can be a danger. There is no logical reason why the provisions of clause 22 should not apply to cyclists as well as to motorists. It is questionable whether the clause is necessary, given that the existing law provides the opportunity to prosecute drivers who use their phones while driving.
	Another aspect of this part of the Bill concerns me. No distinction seems to be drawn between using a mobile phone while driving and using a mobile phone while sitting in the driver's seat of a stationary car whose engine is switched off. I do not see why, in the latter circumstance, drivers should be exposed to the risk of prosecution. We will pursue the point in Committee.

Rob Marris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tim Yeo: For the last time.

Rob Marris: May I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that rather than having a go at cyclists, who cause very few accidents, he would do better to consider the research that indicates that using a hands-free mobile phone can distract a driver to the point where they are driving as though they had the legal limit for alcohol in their blood? Mobile phones are an important issue, but the hon. Gentleman should address the issue of hands-free mobile phones being used by drivers while driving, rather than taking a cheap shot at cyclists, who cause very few accidents. A cyclist using a mobile phone is foolish and much more likely to damage themselves than to damage anyone else. That is not the case with a driver using a mobile phone, who is much more likely to injure someone else than themselves.

Tim Yeo: I do not know how often the hon. Gentleman walks round London

Rob Marris: I cycle.

Tim Yeo: Fine. After the close of business in the House, I frequently walk home to my flat, which is about a mile. I do not think I ever complete that journey without being nearly knocked over by a bicycle at least two or three times. If the cyclist is using a mobile phone, they are even more likely to knock over a pedestrian. I do not believe that cyclists are universally responsible and remain off the pavement. There are about three traffic lights on that same journey, and it is unusual not to see a cyclist going through a red light. That is a danger to pedestrians. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) may say that cars are more dangerous. I acknowledged that before I made any reference to cyclists.
	As I have said, the Bill contains several desirable provisions and for that reason we shall not divide the House on Second Reading. We believe that the Bill can be improved and we shall seek to make those improvements in Committee. It falls short of being a comprehensive strategy for cutting the number of casualties in road accidents but, given that we are probably at most only a dozen weeks from the start of the general election campaign, a more comprehensive strategy can be eagerly anticipated on the election of a Conservative Governmenta happy day for the nation, not long delayed. In the meantime, we shall do what we can, in co-operation with the Government and other parties who are ready to adopt our pragmatic, risk-based, common-sense approach to these important issues, to restore a downward trend in the number of people killed on Britain's roads.

Several hon. Members: rose

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind all Members that Mr. Speaker has imposed a 12-minute limit on all Back-Bench speeches.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: There can be few areas of life where we confront as many risks as those faced by pedestrians, cyclists and even motorists in their day-to-day contact with traffic.
	It is strange that when death comes calling in what we persist in describing as traffic accidents, it is a very lonely thing for each family involved. Although so many people are killed every day, traffic-connected deaths are, somehow or other, seen as individual incidents, and the families who suffer the trauma and agony of having to come to terms with what has happened to them frequently feel completely isolated. They cannot understand how frequent such a terrible set of circumstances is in our day-to-day life. So when the House considers road traffic legislation we must remember that it is not a small part of the daily life of our people; it is something that has an impact on children and adults across the board.
	I know of no other area where we would accept the death of 10 people every day. Day after day after day, we kill 10 people on our roadsquite apart from those we seriously injureyet there are still arguments in the House about the methods to restrict those who do not respect the necessary laws of the land, which are there to protect our people.
	I welcome any Bill, such as this one, which specifically sets out things that will help us to improve the safety of our children and our people. If I criticise it and ask for more, it is not because I believe that it has been wrongly brought before the House, but because the fact that as a society we do not seem to have got our head around the enormity of what we do to our people every day concerns me so very deeply.

David Taylor: My hon. Friend refers to daily occurrences. One of the most moving and traumatic telephone calls that I have received recently was from the mother of a young man who was killed a few weeks ago by an articulated lorry, in a pedestrian accident on a fast road near Ashby-de-la-Zouch. She and his family simply cannot understand the present state of the law, which allows the charge against the driver to be restricted merely to one of careless driving, with a few points on his licence and a few pounds off his bank balance. They have had a son removed from their lives for ever.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: That is exactly the sort of problem that we should be addressing urgently.
	The Select Committee on Transport looked carefully at the Bill, because we thought that there were several straightforward questions that the House should ask. Is road traffic legislation correct and appropriate? Do the police have the right priorities in their attitude towards the whole question of policing traffic? Is there sufficient priority in legislation for the needs of pedestrians and cyclists? Could we do more to deal with dangerous drivers before they become lethal? Are we convinced that we need changes in responsibilities that will, almost inevitably, impinge on the way that we police our roads? Are we sure that those priorities are correct?
	My Committee looked carefully across the board. We found many good things in the Bill, but we are also concerned. Inevitably, the House of Commons ought to lead on such a subject. Frequently, when we frame laws, we give a general impression to the public about how we ought to deal with death and destruction that comes in the form of a road traffic accident.
	If we make it clear that we are utterly against such developments and that the decisions that we take about management tools, such as speed cameras, are meant to cut deaths and if we make it even clearer that the law ought to be enforced very strongly against those who cause death by dangerous driving, we ought to have the support of the general public.
	If, however, we frame legislation that appears somehow or other to underplay the importance of deaths in road traffic accidents and if we run campaigns that, for various populist reasons, seem to say that speed cameras are not instruments of care and protection but something that ought to be destroyed, the general public will think either that we are not serious or that we do not understand the full implications of what we are doing. So my Committee was concerned about what is missing from the Bill as much as what is in it.
	We have already heard from many hon. Members about death by dangerous driving. I am not a lawyer, and I am prepared to believe that there are real difficulties in framing certain charges, but the reality is that if someone has lost a member of their family because of someone driving a car, they do not believe that justice has been done if that person receives either a small fine or some kind of restriction on their licence, and there is no genuine acceptance of the fact that that death was not only unnecessary, but unwarranted and indefensible.

Paul Stinchcombe: My hon. Friend mentions the offence of death by dangerous driving. Is she astonished that there is not even an offence known to English law of causing death by careless or negligent driving?

Gwyneth Dunwoody: Absolutely astonished. That was one of the things that the Committee looked at very carefullyother members of the Committee will want to make such points strongly laterbut the points that I want to make are about policy direction as much as anything else.
	I believe the Secretary of State to be not only highly efficient, but very caring. He has demonstrated, time and again, that his legislative priorities are exactly the right ones. I therefore hope that when I say very strongly that I believe that his colleagues in the Home Office are not behaving in the same responsible manner, he will understand that I expect of him a commitment to chase them very hard about what is happening.
	My Committee was told that an overall review of road traffic law is taking place in the Home Office, that a considerable amount of work is being done and that we must wait for the extension of road traffic legislation before the Home Office can produce measured conclusions. I therefore ask the Secretary of State why we are still waiting a year after we were promised the Halliday report. Where is that report? Given the high public profile of the Home Office, which seems to concern itself with every aspect of our lives, why are we still waiting for that report to be published and brought to the House of Commons?
	If we are serious about road traffic legislation, that report is one of the things that should have been produced already. If the report has not been published, why not? If the report has been published, has the Department for Transport seen it? Was it allowed to look at the complex legal issues and has its advice been sought in relation to the report's conclusions? It is extraordinary that the Home Office is not working much more closely with the lead Department on road safety because such things will make the difference.
	That brings me to the specific point of enforcement. It is essential that the Home Office realises that the failure to put road traffic among the core responsibilities of chief constables has meant that its importance is unevenly stressed across the United Kingdom. Some chief constables accept that legislation is vital and that the activity has to be regarded as seriously as other forms of criminal activity. Unfortunately, chief constables in some counties do not regard that activity as having the same implications as other activities.
	The Select Committee was very concerned with the evidence and the responses we received from not only Home Office Ministers, but those who felt generally that there was no clear line of responsibility and that the pressure to take the matter seriously did not exist. If individual forces do not provide the people to police our roads and do not insist on the subject being taken seriously, we will see the results in terms of accidents. It is clearly a matter of cause and effect.
	We have been given a long and, if the Secretary of State will forgive me, somewhat imprecise series of answers to the questions that we posed in our report's conclusion. I am still worried. Co-operation between the two Departments has not been demonstrated and there is no clear evidence of the urgency and targeting that should concern us. It is clear from our responses that most enforcement activity is carried out in 30 mph urban areas. The Transport Statistics Bulletin on vehicle speeds shows that the percentage of cars exceeding the speed limit reduced from 69 per cent. to 58 per cent. in 2003. In other words, more than half of all cars in urban areas are speeding. By doing so, they are vastly increasing the risk to pedestrians and other motorists. How can we accept a statistic like that? How can we still, in 2004, be debating the same questions over and over again?
	Even today, the Opposition gave us a classic example of the muddle that exists. On the one hand, we appear to be saying that we want law enforcement, but on the other we are saying that we do not want to do anything that upsets the populace or the powerful motoring lobby.
	As a nation, we have to clarify what we want in our minds. While television programmes, motoring magazines and individual articles constantly emphasise that speed is clever, macho and directly connected with the male personaonly alpha males know about speedwe are inculcating in our young men, and often in our young people generally, a very dangerous thought. We should be saying, Yes, cars are important. Yes, you need them. Yes, you can use them. But they are killing machines. The damage done by tonnes of steel and glass hitting a body does not encourage us to believe that the subject should be treated lightly.
	Our report will ask for many changes. I hope that the Standing Committee accepts some of them. If the Government are serious about death and destruction, this is the moment to have targeted, tough and explicit legislation.

John Thurso: I want to pick up on the point made by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) about the connection between speed and the male persona. An interesting article in Aberdeen's The Press  Journal yesterdaya paper I doubt she would have occasion to readhad the disturbing report that female drivers are starting to outweigh their male counterparts in terms of speeding. The problem, to which she is right to draw attention, is not just relevant to one sex, but runs across the strands of young people, be they male or female.
	The United Kingdom has a good road safety record. In fact, it is one of the best in the world. However, as we heard, there are still 10 deaths each day on our roads. In 2002, the last year for which figures are available, 302,605 people were injured on the roads, 3,431 were killed and 35,976 were seriously injured. As has been said, with any other mode of transport there would be a public scandal, and we can certainly do much to reduce the total. A number of measures can and should be introduced, including many in the Bill, although, as I shall explain, there are some serious omissions. My colleagues and I are happy to give the Bill our full support on Second Reading. We will give it our general and broad support in Committee, but I hope that some of my suggestions will be taken on board.
	The UK generally has a good road safety record, but, interestingly, it masks areas of poor performance. For example, in 2002, 179 children were killed, 58 per cent. of whom were pedestrians, so the UK's child pedestrian record is one of the worst in western Europe. Two thirds of accidents in which people are killed or seriously injured take place on roads where the speed limit is 40 mph or less. It is worth noting that 60 per cent. of accidents occur on rural roads. There are worrying signs that positive trends that have been moving downwards for a number a years, including drink-driving, are now either static or increasing. The UK's generally good record can be improved through targeted action, so the Government are right to introduce the Bill.
	Clause 1 allows Ministers in England and the National Assembly for Wales to fund road safety initiatives. That is a sensible power that will do much to improve the situation, and it is already available in Scotland. A substantial contribution to road safety can be made through road engineering and safety schemes as well as enforcement measures. We therefore support the initiative.
	I have considerable concerns about graduated penalties, particularly for speeding. It is a long-established principle in British justice that punishment varies with the severity of the crime, so I do not object to the principle of graduated penalties or punishment. I am, however, concerned that the structure proposed in the consultation paper published last September ignores the outcome of the offence, particularly for speeding in towns and villages. An armed burglar receives a more severe sentence than an unarmed burglar not necessarily because of what they have done but because of what might have happened if they met someone while committing the crime. Two thirds of accidents in which people are killed or seriously injured take place where the speed limit is below 40 mph.
	In areas with a 30 mph speed limit, the consultation proposed a lower penalty of two points and 40 for speeds of up to 39 mph. The chances of surviving the impact of a car travelling at 35 mph are half those of surviving the impact of a car travelling at 30 mph. I am therefore concerned that if the penalty were accepted for speeds between 30 and 40 mph the House would send the wrong message, suggesting that modest speeding in towns is acceptable. By contrast, the difference in outcomes when cars are travelling at 70 or 80 mph on the motorway is less stark. To a certain extent, the speed limits on motorways and dual carriageways, which are specifically engineered for faster speeds, are a compromise between our desire to travel quickly and our desire to travel safely while having regard to the environmental consequences of higher speeds. However, where there is mixed use of the road by pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders and others, particularly in built-up areas, the balance must shift from the car and the driver and towards pedestrians, who the suffer the effects. Observance of the 30 mph speed limit is critical in reducing injury and death, and I hope that the Government take that point on board.
	Almost every week, I travel up the A9 on several occasions. I have followed cars driven at 50 mph by respectable middle-aged peoplepeople such as mewho do not slow down that much when they come to towns. I do 30 mph as they whizz away. Many middle-aged drivers do not understand the difference between impacts at 30 mph, 35 mph and 40 mph. They would think that one were a speeder if one passed them at 60 mph on the open road, but they happily go through towns at 35 mph or 40 mph. That point is extremely important. Although we do not oppose graduation in principle, our support in Committee will depend on the detail of the likely outcome being fleshed outwe have grave difficultly in accepting a two-point penalty for offences up to 39 mph.
	I support moves to ban detection and avoidance devices. It is crazy to have a law, yet allow the use of a device to stop detection. I used to know people who fitted such devices to their cars, and they were not people who would inadvertently drive a little bit fast. They actually wanted to drive a great deal faster than the legal limit and knowingly to break the limit. I am sorry to say that they are the most likely people to buy such devices, which I have no qualms in seeing being made illegal.
	Clauses 11 to 15 deal with drink-driving. We have come a long way since the introduction of the breathalyser. I obtained my licence at about the time when the first breathalysers were introduced, when, if someone was caught drink-driving, people would say, Oh dear. You poor fellow. What bad luck.
	Most sensible driversthe vast majority of the populationnow accept that drink-driving is a dangerous and serious crime. Together with sound enforcement, that change in attitude has seen a steady decline in drink-driving and drink-related accidents. However, it is worrying that that trend appears to have stopped and even to have reversed, with figures showing a rise in drink-related injuries and deaths over recent years. It has already been said that the rise has been accompanied by a fall in tests undertaken by police and the number of police who are on the road and who are available to conduct tests, although I must state that the percentage of tests failed has risen too. I cannot believe that a relationship does not exist between lower police numbers, fewer tests and higher drink-related accident rates.
	This summer, I discussed drink-driving with the area commander in my constituency, who pointed out that one of the greatest worries is that many drink-drivers are not young people but middle-aged males. Again, the problem is not that those people have one drink too many, but that they consume as much as twice the limit. The trend by which people who should know better commit seriously-over-the-limit offences is very disturbing.

Kelvin Hopkins: To reinforce the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, may I point out that when random breath-testing was introduced in Australia, the police suddenly found that they were catching many more middle-aged people who were used to drinking and drivingthe people who should have been caught but were not?

John Thurso: A week ago, I had an interesting discussion with my mother. She said, Oh darling, I am so gladI have now been told how many glasses of wine I can drink and it's safe to drive. I said, Mama, you cannot do it like that, because there are different percentage rates of alcohol, and glass sizes are different. If you want to be really safe, don't do it all. If you happen to be just down the road and have half a glass, that's fine, but don't go any further than that. That is the problem. Middle-aged people think that the limit equals two or three glasses of wine, a couple of pints or three whiskies, but do not realise that depending on the metabolism of the person, the percentage by volume of the alcohol and the size of the glass, one drink may put them over the limit. Really, one does not drink and drive.
	Although there is considerable merit in the proposal to reduce the permitted blood-alcohol level from 80 mg to 50 mg, there remains a big problem with people who are well over the limit, and we need to target them. The measures in the Bill are clearly sensible and will definitely help. However, we need to look again at the question of enforcement, as there is no substitute for traffic police officers who are able to stop people, make random searches and o ensure that offenders are kept off the roads.
	Much in the Bill is sensible and deserves our support, and I do not intend to touch on all those aspects. I have reservations about some of the details, such as the fees to be charged for recalled licences, but those can happily wait until Committee. I am more concerned about notable omissions from the Bill that I should like to be included. One partial omission relates to what can be done about uninsured drivers, who are a major danger on our roads. They cost a great deal in terms of money and lives, and create immense misery. That issue deserves to be tackled. Although clause 39 will help, the Greenaway report made several recommendations that would have been of great value had they been included in the Bill and would have received support from all over the House. I hope that during the passage of the Bill the Government, perhaps with the aid of the Select Committee on Transport, will introduce further measures to combat that particular evil.
	Another omissionI will not say that it is less important, but perhaps less severeis that of measures to make standard ECE 104 reflective tape for lorries mandatory. The Secretary of State said that he is unaware of the evidence on that, but I have compelling evidence that shows:
	The introduction of retro-reflective tape on HGVs in the USA reduced side and near impact collisions in 'dark-not-lighted' conditions by 41 per cent.
	The US Federal Highways Administration found that the ratio of savings to costs is such that every 100 invested . . . results in a reduced economic cost to society of 162.
	Research by The University of Darmstadt found that 37 per cent. of all side collisions with trucks at night occurred because they were seen too late.
	I should like to raise that evidence in Committee, and I hope that the Government will at least consider it.
	Another example is the retro-fitting of bull bars. Many Members have commented on bull bars, which are completely unnecessary in this country. I can think of no circumstances, not even on a farmor, dare I say it, an estatewhere bull bars are a necessity. The retro-fitting of bull bars greatly increases the vehicle's danger in the case of impact with a pedestrian, and I encourage the Government to insert a clause to ban it.
	I have highlighted another problem, which although not grave is none the less important, to the Under-Secretary in correspondence. Several local authorities would like to be able to put up repeater signs in 30 mph limits, especially in rural areas where long distances may be travelled with some doubt about the limit. Local authorities of all hues and persuasions have asked me why they cannot erect repeater signs. According to the Under-Secretary's replies, they are not permitted to do so by law. Perhaps we could examine that.
	Perhaps the most important point is framing a charge of causing death by negligent driving. An interesting debate was held in Westminster Hall at the beginning of September in which the subject was raised. Like many hon. Members, I am fully aware of the difficulty of framing such legislation but I have heard pleas for it from so many hon. Members and so many of our constituents that I believe it is incumbent on us as legislators to frame and introduce such a law. Again, I hope that the Government will be inclined to consider that.
	I have a final suggestion. I doubt whether we can include it in the Bill, but I believe that it would make a difference. Several speakers have said that if the accident rateperhaps it should be more properly called the incident rateapplied to any other industry or mode of transport, we would be up in arms. All other modes of transport have specific units that investigate accidents. We should consider establishing a dedicated road accident investigation unit so that we could understand centrally what caused each accident and learn and apply the lessons. That is probably too complicated to include in the Bill but I should like the Government at least to think about it.
	The Bill contains many sound provisions. As I said, we are happy to support it on Second Reading and we shall support it in Committee, where we should like to make some changes. I believe that many of the changes that I propose would find support from hon. Members in other parties. We all ultimately have an identical concern: we want fewer people killed and safer roads.

Alice Mahon: As joint chair of the all-party group on road safety, I am pleased about the Bill, which contains many welcome provisions. The Government's road safety strategy over the years has been progressive. It is worth repeating the Secretary of State's opening remark that we have one of the best road safety records in the world. However, it is essential to recognise that far more can be done.
	In 2003, the number of people killed and seriously injured fell to 37,215. Although I say fell, it remains a huge number, yet it is 22 per cent. below the 199498 average. Nevertheless, the figure represents human beings who have been seriously damaged or are no longer with us. The number of children killed or seriously injured fell to 4,100, which is 40 per cent. below the 199498 average. However, the figures still mean, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said, that 10 people, some of them children, die every day on our roads. Imagine the outcry if that happened on trains or aeroplanes. Although we have a good record and the Government's strategy has been progressive, a big problem remains.
	I do not want to go into too much detail about drink-driving because many other hon. Members have spoken about that. There had been advances until recently, but we have now reached a plateau and we might even go in the other direction. We should remember that 500 people a year die because of drink-driving. That is a shocking statistic. I am pleased that the Bill will give police new powers to take drink-driving evidence at the roadside. As the Secretary of State said, that closes a loophole and we are all pleased about that.
	I wish that the Government had gone a little further, however, and introduced measures to bring the UK into line with most of the rest of Europe on drink-drive limits. I disagree with the hon. Members who said that there is no need for a reduction in those limits. I agree with Brake, the road safety charity, which is arguing for the limits to be brought down to the same level as those in Sweden. That would be 20 mg of alcohol per 100 ml of bloodif we went for the European average, it would be 50 mgand I think that that would be an acceptable level. The most up-to-date law on this is the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003, which makes provision for a limit of 20 mg of alcohol per 100 ml of blood for train drivers and pilots, and I do not see the logic of its provisions not applying to road users. I hope that the Government will reconsider this matter. Having said that, I congratulate them on some of the measures in the Bill.
	I would like briefly to refer to Brake again, because I have been involved in its campaign, Watch out, there's a kid about. In 2003, the number of deaths on foot of children aged between eight and 19the age range in which children use the roads on foot without being accompanied by an adultwent up by 26 per cent. to 110, compared with 87 the previous year. We also should note that, for children aged between five and 14, road deaths are the second biggest killer after cancer, so we should take this issue seriously. Again, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich on this matter. Brake recommends speed limits of no higher than 20 mphand, where appropriate, 10 mpharound schools and in residential and built-up areas. I do not know why the Government do not accept that recommendation. A child on foot has a 95 per cent. chance of surviving a crash in which the car is travelling at 20 mph. That chance dwindles to almost none when the speed is increased to 40 mph.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: One measure that has been very successful in many areas is the introduction of the flashing 20 mph signs that teachers switch on when children are coming and going around a school. Perhaps we should try to persuade the Government to introduce that system across all areas of the country.

Alice Mahon: Absolutely. I ask the Government to consider that, because we would all agree that the prize of fewer child deaths would be worth while.

Patrick McLoughlin: Unfortunately, I was attending a Committee when the Secretary of State made his speech; otherwise I would have spoken in this debate. The hon. Lady and I jointly chair the all-party group on road safety, along with one of the Liberal Democrat MPs. One of the things that I have tried to impress on the Government relates to the length of time that British summer time lasts. There is an increase of child road deaths in the winter months and, if the Government will not consider abolishing turning back the hour, I would like them to consider reducing the period of time involved. At the moment, we are on winter time for four or five months, but even a reduction of that period would have significant consequences, if the Government will not go the whole way and abolish it completely.

Alice Mahon: The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point, and I hope that the Minister was listening to him.
	The Bill contains proposals to deal with fatigue-related accidents, which account for about 20 per cent. of deaths on motorways. I have been working on this issue with a small working group involving people from both the medical side and the road transport side. I welcome the inclusion in the Bill of measures to mitigate driver fatigue through the provision of picnic sites for motorway users and the better enforcement of EU rules on drivers' hours. According to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, up to one fifth of accidents on motorways, and about 300 fatalities a year, may be caused by drivers falling asleep at the wheel. We should take that statistic very seriously.
	Although the Bill includes measures to address driver fatigue, I am worried that it does nothing to tackle the serious problem of drivers with undiagnosed or untreated sleep disorders. About 770,000 people in the UK have a sleep disorder, many hundreds, if not thousands, of whom are driving on our roads today. People with untreated obstructive sleep apnoeaa prevalent sleep disorderare up to 12 times more likely that others to have a road accident. I have tried to take that up with the Department of Health, but the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman), did not seem very interested, so I hope that Transport Ministers will talk to him and perhaps get a bit further than I did.
	The Royal College of Physicians has pointed out that there is an especially high incidence of sleep apnoea among professional drivers, as the condition is common in middle-aged men who are slightly overweight. A study of 35 professional drivers at one depot found that nine of them were at extreme or high risk of the condition and that four others were at risk of other sleep disorders. Although the Bill addresses sleepy, yet otherwise healthy, drivers, I am concerned that it misses an important opportunity to tackle the worrying problem of accidents caused by drivers with undiagnosed or untreated sleep disorders.
	I shall cite one example. In August 2003, John Stevens died in a road accident while driving to work. He was 41, with a wife and two young sons. As a motorway roadworks technical manager, John's job involved driving long distances and he was an experienced driver. In the year leading up to the fatal accident, John had become progressively sleepier during the daytime, despite sleeping for seven hours each night. He did not think that the sleepiness could be due to a medical condition, even when he suffered a minor accident after falling asleep at the wheel. His employers eventually insisted on a medical check and he sought help.
	John's general practitioner diagnosed sleep apnoea and referred him to a clinic for diagnosis and treatment. Almost all patients who need medical treatment go on a long waiting list, and three months before John's appointment, he crashed his car with fatal consequences. That demonstrates just one example of the devastating effect of the lack of awareness of sleep disorders in the UK and the importance of speedy diagnosis and treatment.
	I recently met Professor John Stradling, who told me that there is a currently a seven-month waiting list for diagnosed patients to receive treatment for sleep apnoea, so at any one time hundreds of people could be waiting for treatment or diagnosis. A joined-up response from the Department for Transport and the Department of Health is required to tackle the problems caused by sleep disorders, because the number of people affected is not small. Such people are ticking time-bombs on our roads and motorways. I urge the Government to seize the opportunity to address the matter in their proposals on driver sleepiness. Edinburgh university sleep centre puts the cost of treating 500 sleep apnoea patients for five years at 400,000, yet the cost of accidents caused by the same 500 untreated patients over the same period is put at 5.3 million, so I hope that the fact that I have raised the matter will encourage the Department for Transport to examine it. Additionally, under criminal law, it is no defence that a driver had an accident while asleep. The presumption is that the driver should have known that he or she was likely to have fallen asleep and thus not have driven. That is an unfair presumption to make about people with sleep disorders who do not know that they have such a medical condition.
	I thank the Government once again because the Bill contains good measures and they have a good record on road safety. Important matters have been addressed and I hope that the Minister will take seriously the suggestions that hon. Members and I raise during the debate.

David Atkinson: My constituents will welcome much that is proposed in the Bill. In Bournemouth, in 2003, more than 20 per cent. fewer road casualties occurred than in 2002. That is a considerable decline, which will undoubtedly be enhanced by some of the measures contained in the Bill. We have seen such declines previously, however, only to see them equally dramatically reversed a year or two later. The fact remains that the average number of serious and fatal casualties in Bournemouth has been the same over the past 10 years103 citizens killed or seriously injured on our roads every year. That means 100 partnerships and families temporarily or permanently deprived of a loved one because of carelessness or irresponsibility on our roads. I am therefore encouraged that all parties in the House are approaching this Bill in a constructive spirit of support.
	All of us have received representations from interested parties expressing concern at some of the measures in the Bill and proposing amendments to improve it. Such representations apply to the range of points and fines available through the fixed-penalty system, on which I read the article by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) in The Times yesterday with great interest. I must declare an interest because of my current six penalty points for speeding, in which I suspect that I am not alone in the House. I was sorry to read that one hon. Friend has recently been banned from drivingthere but for the grace of God . . .
	I agree with those who say that the current penalty point system needs to be revised. Of course, I do not object to the provision of safety cameras provided that they are placed at obvious and known places of accidents caused by speeding vehicles. We have been reassured by the Government that that is the case, and I hope that the Minister will repeat that in his wind-up today. I welcome the commitment given by my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) that the next Government will audit the current provision of safety cameras to re-justify their location.
	There is no doubt that safety cameras influence most of us to keep our speed within the law. It is not so much the minimum fine of 60 but the awful prospect of being deprived of driving, and thus, in many cases, of livelihood, which concentrates the mind wonderfully. I suggest that most of us do not exceed the speed limit deliberately, and that we do so neither purposely nor excessively: for example, when temporary cameras are put in place on roads that are being repaired and that are not clearly indicated. That was the case when I incurred both my penalties. That is no excuse, but is unfortunate. I therefore agree with the proposed variable, graduated system of penalty points, which differentiates levels of speed. In addition, I suggest that the fixed minimum fine be raised from 60 to 100. That would be fairer, and also effective.
	I welcome the enforcement of legislation against uninsured drivers in the Bill. The Royal Automobile Club tells us that the current average penalty for driving without insurance is 150, which is far too lenient to discourage such extremely serious and irresponsible behaviour. The current cynical perception of many uninsured drivers is that there are not enough police patrolling our roads to apprehend them, and, of course, they will avoid on-street parking where they can. Better detection, as the Bill proposes, together with higher penalties and proper enforcement would change that perception and the practice; nor should foreign drivers be exempt.
	I agree completely with the provision of motorway rest areas, which will contribute greatly to the reduction in fatigue-related accidents, but surely we do not need to pilot the provision of such rest areas, because of their obvious effectiveness where they already exist. The experience of the French page motorways and trunk roads where such rest areas are frequent is sufficient to propose to the Highways Agency that it should proceed with their introduction on our roads forthwith.
	I welcome the proposed enforcement of measures against foreign drivers committing offences in the United Kingdom. Such measures should be the same throughout the European Union. While I will always support the right of a national parliament to introduce laws and standards to reflect and respond to the situation in our constituencies, the whole point of the European Community is to ensure and enforce minimum standards in every state. Such a policy need not be restrictedin the context of road safetyto the 25 European Union member states; it could apply to all 46 member states of the Council of Europe, perhaps through an appropriate convention. I look forward to an assurance from the Minister that a level playing field will be introduced throughout the EU.

Mark Lazarowicz: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that he will be in favour of a reduction of the drink-driving limit to the 50 mg level that is normal in most other EU countries?

David Atkinson: I have not mentioned that issue because I have no clear views on how the position can be improved, and I shall therefore not respond to the hon. Gentleman's invitation.
	I welcome clause 22, which deals with the use of hand-held mobile phones. Most of us see that totally unacceptable practice being engaged in all too frequently by drivers trying to steer through traffic. It can cause them to hit another car, or a pedestrian or cyclist. Such accidents are unavoidable, and they must not be allowed to happen. The same applies to accidents and near-misses at night involving cars and bikes without lights. It seems to me that too many cyclists nowadays do not display lights at night. They are putting themselves at needless risk, yet it remains the motorist's responsibility to avoid them. Any programme to improve road safety must include a relentless policy of zero tolerance by the police of cyclists who ride without lights at night.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: Could that not be tightened up by means of the insurance system? If those without lights were not insured, would that not make them act?

David Atkinson: I am not sure that many cyclists seek to insure themselves. It is an idea, but I am not certain that there is a great deal of worth in it.
	In the context of road safety generally and the Bill in particular, let me stress the need for ever greater education and training, especially for young people. The encouragement of personal responsibility among primary school-age children as pedestrians, cyclists and passengers will contribute to a generational shift in attitudes to road safety as those children grow up and become car drivers themselves.

Paul Tyler: Should not young motor cyclists be given much more training? Sadly, in the last 12 months many young people have died on our roads in Cornwall. Training of young motor cyclists, and the checking of that training, are very important.

David Atkinson: I entirely agree. No doubt the Minister heard the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, and perhaps he will respond when he winds up the debate.
	A few years ago, a road safety initiative by Bournemouth university graduates, called the junior citizens programme, demonstrated that children who received the training that I have described retained more knowledge than those who did not. That led to the establishment in Wallisdown, in the constituency of my   hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill), of the Streetwise safety centre, sponsored by local authorities and the Dorset police. It is a life-sized indoor village where people of all ages can discuss how to stay safe and what to do in an emergency. They can learn about accident prevention in the home, at work and on the roads, and much else besides.
	The centre is working directly to meet the target set by the Government's road safety strategy to reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured on our roads by 2010. More than 65,000 people have visited the centre since it opened in January 1999. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West is a trustee of its partnership. I pay tribute to his personal interest in it, and especially to the excellent work of its manager, Alison Curtis. That unique centre is undertaking valuable pioneering work in education and training in road safety, which can only support and complement the Bill. I have no hesitation in drawing it to the attention of the House, and commending it as an example of best practice to be emulated by local and police authorities throughout the country.

Paul Stinchcombe: Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to make a brief contribution to this debate. Let me state at the outset that I not only welcome the Bill; I believe it to be vital.
	We live in a society, and an age, in love with the car. We all know how powerful the road lobby is. It can bring the country to a standstill over the price of petrol; it can fill our postbags with letters of disgust whenever someone is caught breaking the law speeding. I do not say that by way of an attack on the motoristI am onebut in simple recognition of the way in which most of us live today. In rural areas, the car is often the only effective means of transport. For many in urban areas, it remains absolutely essential to our work. In some ways, perhaps, the car is even a badge of personal freedom. For many of our youngest drivers, for example, the car marks their coming of agean outward sign of their adulthood. The first driving lesson might be a cherished present from mum and dad; for some, their first car might even be the reward for getting through the test. For them, the car is literally and metaphorically a rite of passage.
	But along with that comes a big responsibility. A car, however beautifully designed, is not a comfortable air-conditioned extension of one's front room. For all of us, the car is a potentially lethal weapon that not only can kill but does kill. It killed my teenage cousin. It kills 10 people in this country every day, and 3,500 every year. The Bill will help to reduce that number, thereby saving lives and reducing grief. That is why I welcome it todayas we all shouldand warmly.
	However, I do not welcome the Bill unconditionally. Although it is good, it can be improved in several ways, one of which I wish to discuss. We need to rewrite the law concerning cases in which bad driving causes death. At the moment, a wide range of charges are available to deal with those who drive below the standard that the criminal law requires, yet at the heart of that law there is a yawning gap: the complete absence of the offence of causing death by careless or negligent driving when not under the influence of drink or drugs.
	The extent of that gap is readily apparent from the sentences available for the various offences for which charges are most usually brought. For dangerous driving, the maximum penalty is two years in prison. For causing death by dangerous driving, the maximum penalty rises to 14 years in prisona 12-year difference, to mark the gravity of life being lost. For careless driving, the maximum penalty is a fine and points on the licence. For causing death by careless driving when under the influence, the maximum penalty rises to 10 years in prison.
	But what about causing death by careless driving when not under the influence of drink or drugs? That is not even an offence known to English law. The maximum penalty is exactly the same as for any other case of careless driving in which no life is lostjust a fine and points on the licence. I find that absolutely bewildering. The law has created two offencesdangerous driving and causing death by dangerous drivingwith markedly different potential penalties. The reason for that can only be that the law generally regards cases where driving of the same unlawful standard causes loss of life as more serious than cases where such driving causes just a dent or a scratch to a vehicle.
	Moreover, there is a good policy reason for that differentiation. It underlines in law the simple fact that cars can kill, so all of us must be especially careful when we take to the road in them. Why, then, is the same principle not consistently applied to careless driving? Where is the sense in the law considering dangerous driving, but not careless driving, as much more serious when a life is lost? There is no sense. The law contains a gaping holethe absence of any offence of causing death by careless drivingand in one way or another it needs to be filled.
	That gap needs to be filled not just for legal neatness, but to meet the concerns of those who suffer the grief of loved ones being killed by careless drivers. All Members will have recently received a letter from my constituents, Peter and Tracey Melnik, about the death last year of their daughter, Alexine. Alexine was returning home with her boyfriend and friends from a pop concert in Great Yarmouth, when the car in which she was a passenger was hit from behind and pushed into the path of oncoming traffic.
	Everybody else escaped the accident uninjured, but Alexine died. She was only 17 when she was killed by a careless driver. The driver was charged, and Peter and Tracey went to court, hoping for some semblance of justice and a sense of closure. The driver was found guilty and sentenced, but because he was charged only with careless rather than dangerous driving, and because he was neither drunk nor under the influence of drugs, the fact that he killed Alexine through his unlawful careless drivingin short, his criminal negligencesimply did not matter.
	No offence of causing death by careless or negligent driving is known to English law, so that driver could be charged only with careless driving, for which offence he could only be fined and have points on his licence. In the end, for killing Mr. and Mrs. Melnik's daughter through his criminal negligence, the driver received just a 500 fine and nine penalty points. The total value placed on the life of their child was 500. Furthermore, because the driver pleaded guilty, there was no need to go through in detail the nature of the careless driving that caused her death. There was no forensic examination of the evidence, no detailed consideration of the circumstances leading to the loss of Alexine's life, and no questioning of why he failed to brake in time. There was just a plea and a 500 fine.
	Little wonder that Peter and Tracey Melnik left the courtroom with no sense of closure, just a burning sense of injustice to add to their agonising grief. That is why they have written to all hon. Members to suggest that the Bill should be amended to prevent anyone else having to go through that again. I pay personal tribute to them for the courage and dignity of their campaign, and I agree with them. Like Peter and Tracey, I do not believe that the existing structure of the law can possibly be justified, and I believe that this Bill can be the legislative vehicle for making the improvement that needs to be made. It can easily be amended.
	Perhaps surprisingly, an alternative method could be an amendment to the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill. I am advised that either Bill could properly be amended to fill the gap. All we need is a simple amendment to create an additional offence of causing death by careless or negligent driving when not under the influence of drink and drugs. Then we need to legislate to create for that offence an appropriate maximum prison sentence, perhaps of seven years.
	In so arguing, may I make it clear that I do not want all cases where careless driving causes death to result in custody? I am a trustee of the Prison Reform Trust and spend much of my time arguing that fewer people should go to prison, not more. I believe, however, that it should be possible to sentence more seriously if the facts of any given case merit it. Legislating to create that opportunity would mean that the facts surrounding any road death caused by carelessness would have to be properly considered in court to ensure that the sentence passed was appropriate, matched the degree of carelessness, and reflected the fact that a death occurred. At the moment, as in Alexine's case, that simply does not happen. In the future, it must surely be possible.
	On behalf of Alexine's parents, I ask my right hon. Friend to consider amending the Bill before it comes back to the House so that the gap in the law can be filled and what is becoming known in Wellingborough as Alexine's law can be enacted. If not, will my right hon. Friend prevail on the Home Secretary to amend the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill to identical effect? I am not alone in so asking, and I ask not just on behalf of Alexine's mum and dad and her immediate family, but on behalf of the overwhelming majority of my constituents.
	Just a week ago, I asked my local newspaper, the Evening Telegraph, if it would run a story on Alexine and include a ballot paper asking people whether they supported a change in the law. We were inundated with responses: 650 replies in just four days. A further petition to similar effect was drawn up by Mr. Craig Coogana constituent of the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Phil Hope)and it was signed by some 2,000 people. All but two of the respondents wanted the law changed. Why? Because, driven carelessly, vehicles are killers, because the criminal law has to reflect that reality consistently in respect of all types of unlawful driving, and because, quite simply, 500 is too low a value to put on the life of any child killed by criminal negligence.

Andrew Miller: I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe), who made a strong case in respect of the circumstances affecting one family in his area. I was also pleased that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in his opening remarks that he accepted that driving a car in such a way as to cause a death was very similar to killing a person with any weapon. He is the first person in his position to say that.
	Some years ago, I gave evidence to the Law Commission and argued that there should be an offence of causing death by driving. It is absurd that cases can be brought to court yet the question of the death caused is never exposed because of technicalities such as those that we have heard about. It is absurd that the structure of our law does not consider death to be at the centre of such cases. Although such a provision may not be appropriate for this Bill, I think that the House should look for an appropriate mechanism to adapt the law so that the principle that I have outlined can be addressed.
	There are exact parallels between manslaughter and causing death by driving. Investigating officers, the Crown Prosecution Service and, most importantly, the courts should be able to determine where a person's death fits in the spectrum of culpability. Courts would then be in an appropriate position to mete out an appropriate sentence. That is the way forward.
	The hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) made an important point about drawing parallels between deaths on the road and deaths in other circumstances, and referred to examples of deaths caused in accidents involving aeroplanes and trains. Societyand in particular the mediaseems to adopt a different psychological attitude to rail or air tragedies from that which it takes to individual deaths on the road. It is important that the House should be seen to take a lead in the matter, and to say that the total number of deaths on our roads is far too high. The fact that those deaths are scattered around the country should not deter us from the sort of bold decisions that the public would expect us to take in response to a major incidentsuch as a plane falling from the skythat causes hundreds of deaths. We need to address both sets of circumstances in the same way.
	Various hon. Members have said that we need to raise public awareness about the scale of the carnage facing our society. The British record is good compared with that of some other countries, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said that we must do better. The same sentiment was expressed by the spokesmen for the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties.
	We need to find practical solutions, and the Bill contains some ways to make progress in that respect. Training is important. We should consider whether drivers should be more actively encouraged to raise their skill levelsfor example, by taking advantage of the help offered by the Institute of Advanced Motorists. That does not apply only to middle-age people, as the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) implied. It also applies to young people, and it is encouraging that in my own area there is a sprinkling of very young driversthe number is growing all the timewho want to take advantage of the high-quality extra tuition that the IAM provides. Perhaps we can take the opportunity, not necessarily by writing it into the Bill, but by engaging in dialogue with insurance companies, for example, to create massive benefits for drivers who undergo such extra training. People who do that are made aware of the risks that they face on the road.
	Because so many hon. Members want to speak, I shall keep the length of my remarks tight. A number of colleagues have spoken of overlaps with other Government Departments. I should like the Department for Transport to take a strong initiative that engages directly and openly all the other key Departments that can influence the debate. The Home Office, the Department for Education and Skills, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the successor to the Lord Chancellor's Department, and the Department of Health are all important players. We need a joined-up approach to the problems facing us.
	There are some aspects of the Bill that cause me concern. I have serious reservations not about the principle, but about the way in which the Bill deals with variable graduated points. I agree with the comments of the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, and I find it difficult to see why we should harmonise downwards. I can see the merits of graduation, but I believe that we should start at a higher base point. I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), who called for a reduction in the drink-drive limit. Real benefits would accrue from that. However, I do not disagree with the analysis of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. It is the extreme cases that cause problems, but we must set standards and enforce them rigidly.
	Finally, I shall deal with technology issues. I am a great fan of technology, from such simple devices as speed cameras to enormously powerful technology such as the new advanced number plate recognition tools. Under no circumstances should we allow a driver to use more sophisticated technology to get round such technology. Clearly, that should be an offence. I hope that when we deal with that part of the Bill in Committee, we will look at the technical issues and set standards. We should not try to be technology-specific, as that would be dangerous, but we should set standards that embody the principle that driver aids should not include devices that enable a driver to do ridiculous things on the road that increase the risk of death and serious injury.
	The Bill is a very good one, although there are some weaknesses. I hope that in Committee we can achieve unanimity to show the public that we take such matters seriously. The deaths of 3,500 people, such as the constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe), every year are largely avoidable if we get the structure right.

John Randall: I, too, welcome the Bill's provisions but, like other speakers, I want to tell the Minister that the Government should not have the mindset that the measure is set in stone. They should listen to the members of the Standing Committee. As we have already heard, there are some good ideas in the Bill, but there are also some gaps and I hope that the Government genuinely use the opportunities offered in Committee and on Report further to improve it.
	I want to talk briefly about two families who were affected by fatalities. David Burrows, the son of my constituent Keith Burrows, was killed tragically only a couple of hundred yards from my home, before I   became a Member of Parliament. Ever since, Mr. Burrows has worked tirelessly for road safety, and became a local councillor so that he could put road safety at the heart of local civic life. There is still a problem with that stretch of road, however. Sadly, there have been more accidents and last year there was another fatality.
	One of the problems is that we seem to move so slowly when dealing with these things. The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) mentioned repeater signs. There is a 30 mph limit on the stretch of road where the accidents took place, but as it is a dual carriageway no one really keeps to the limit. Over the past seven years, since I have been a Member, I have raised the problem periodically and although I can understand the Government's response, there must be some way of telling people clearly that there is a speed limit on that road and that it must be adhered to. There is a strong case for speed cameras in the area. All the local people, even those who complain when they are caught by speed cameras, would have no hesitation in saying that cameras would prevent fatalities.
	The second family are the constituents of the Minister for School Standards, the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg), but I have met them due to the problems they share with my constituents. George and Julietta Galli-Atkinson's daughter, Olivia, was killed tragically when a car mounted the pavement where she was standing. They have instituted annual Olivia awards to recognise all aspects of the work of traffic police officersfrom those who counsel the bereaved to those who are out on the streets. I pay tribute to all the parents and families who have suffered traumatic loss and to those who work so hard for them.
	A common theme, to which the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe) referred, is the feeling that there is a lack of appropriate offences and that sentences sometimes do not reflect the gravity of the offence. I am not saying that we should impose minimum sentences; we cannot legislate for every eventuality, but the courts must be able to recognise the gravity of offences and if that needs a change in the law, the Bill offers the opportunity to introduce it and to bring in a new offence.
	As the Secretary of State said, the answer is not just legislation; it is very much about education, and in that regard I want to mention a couple of the things that really irritate me when I am driving. I am sure that lots of the things I do irritate other people, but I want to get these off my chest. I do not know whether we can legislate; indeed, some things are already covered by legislation. It is one thing to introduce laws, but we should also ensure that existing laws are observedto echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) and others. No matter what technology is introduced, there is no substitute for police officers.
	I abhor tail-gating, especially by the cabs of heavy-goods vehicles that have released their loads. The drivers are on their way home and travel at high speeds along motorways close behind other vehicles. That is incredibly dangerous and it seems to be a common practice.
	Without upsetting cyclists too much, I would echo the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson). Increasingly, I see cyclistsyoung childrenout at night without lights switched on, and we must imagine what it would be like for people if they hit those cyclists and the trauma that it would cause them and, obviously, the victims themselves.
	I am sure that other hon. Members must see children sitting in the front seats of carsthey should not even be therewithout wearing seat belts. I see lots of people not wearing seat belts, despite the fact that the legislation has existed for goodness knows how long. I see children climbing over from the front to the back while the cars are moving. Every day, I see people not only using mobile phones while driving, but drinking coffee and reading maps or even newspapers while doing so. All I would say is that although such legislation is welcomeI hope that improvements can be madewe must do everything to continue to educate people about the real problems of motoring.

Ian Lucas: In view of the shortness of time, I will restrict my comments to two issues. We have heard a wide consensus indeed in the House this afternoon. I greatly welcome that and hope that it is continued throughout our consideration of this very good Bill, which I support enthusiastically. Like many of my colleagues, my misgivings about the Bill are that it does not go far enough and are not about what it contains.
	While listening to the debate from the Back Bench today, I have been reflecting on the importance of road safety casesa point that has been made already. I was formerly a solicitor in a small market town in Shropshire. During the relatively short time that I worked thereabout eight yearsfour young people were killed in different road traffic accidents. Although I did some criminal law at about the same time, no other deaths of young people ever came across my desk during my work there. That gives some idea of impact that road safety issues have on our constituents. We have heard today, with great eloquence in a well-argued speech, from my hon. Friendmy good friendthe Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe), about the impact that deaths can have on all our communities.
	I want to talk briefly about the graduated points system. I have a great deal of respect for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, but he lost me in his arguments this afternoon in putting the case for reducing the number of penalty points from three to two. We all know that speeding drivers are more dangerous than drivers who do not speed. We all know that the faster people drive, the more dangerous they are. In that context, I cannot for the life of me understand how it makes sense to reduce the number of penalty points imposed for a speeding offence from three to two. I have grave concerns about that. I have no difficulty with the concept of a graduated points system. If clause 16 was amended to refer to a range of three to six points, I am sure that that would carry widespread support throughout the House.
	My second concern relates to an omission from the Bill. This is a road safety Bill and road traffic offences, particularly those that cause serious injury or death, are very important matters indeed in our constituencies. Our constituents find it completely frustrating that no offence can be brought before the courts that reflects the gravity of the death of an individual, when someone who is at fault causes that death while driving a vehicle. In short, our constituents cannot understand why there is no offence of causing death by careless or negligent driving.
	We fail as legislators if we do not address that concern. John Halliday has been investigating that lacuna in the law since July 2003. The Home Office, to which he will report in due course, has been giving assurances to Members of Parliament and to members of the Transport Committee, on which I serve, that the issue will come to the House and be addressed, but we are still waiting for that. The Bill gives us the appropriate opportunity to address the huge gap in the law.
	One of the cases with which I dealt when I was a solicitor in Oswestry involved a 19-year-old motorist who was travelling down the A5, a road that my hon. Friend the Minister knows well. Three passengers in the vehicle that he was driving were killed in a road traffic accident. For a year afterwards, the case proceeded through the courts, based on an allegation of causing death by dangerous driving. I represented the driver and at no stage was there sufficient evidence to justify such an allegation. However, I think that the effect of three deaths, and the importance of those deaths to the families concerned, caused the prosecuting authorities to decide to proceed with the allegation.
	Ultimately, a year on, that case was thrown out in the Crown court. As a result, the families of the three people who were killed felt badly let down by the criminal justice system. Equally, the individual who was acquitted felt let down because he had been awaiting trial for 12 months and did not consider that the allegation was ever justified. An offence of causing death by negligent driving would have allowed the case to be dealt with quickly to the satisfaction of all parties concerned. There would have been an element of closure for the families and even for the defendant, who was devastated by the impact of the accident.
	Every hon. Member has said that they believe that that offence is justified. It is incumbent on us as legislators to act now, to wait no longer and to ensure that the offence of causing death by careless or negligent driving is available to our courts so that bereaved families can have justice.

David Kidney: I declare my non-pecuniary interest in that I co-chair the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety. The approach of PACTS is strictly non-party political. I want to praise successive Governments and Parliaments for keeping the politics out of road safety for decades. The great gain from that has been to our society as a whole, with a huge reduction in the number of people killed and seriously injured on our roads over that time.
	However, it is valid to make the point that last year, for the first time in a number of years, the number of fatalities in the statistics for those who were killed or seriously injured went up instead of down. We should not read too much into one year alone. Longer term, the trend in killed and seriously injured is still clearly downward, but as we have heard so movingly so many times, every loss of life on the roads is a tragedy. So I want to concentrate on ways to reduce the fatalities on our roads.
	I very much support calls for a wider range of offences and tougher sentences for killing by driving, as that would meet the public desire for justice and provide an opportunity to introduce further deterrents against the careless use of dangerous vehicles on our roads. I want to focus on preventive measures but, because of the limited time left for Members who wish to speak, I shall ditch most of them and concentrate almost entirely on drink-driving. However, I urge all parliamentarians to have regard to the report by the advisory group on motorcycling, given the huge increase in motorcycle deaths last year. I urge all employers to have regard to the guidance from the Health and Safety Executive on work-related driving. I alert the world in general to the huge gains from technological solutions, including intelligent speed adaptation, which can reduce fatalities further in future.
	To keep my contribution short, I shall concentrate on drink-driving. Ever since laws on drink-driving were introduced, the legal limit has been 80 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood. That limit has served us well, and is robust and well-understood. However, because of changes in the law, the practices of modern society and the retailing and marketing of alcoholic drinks, it is time to reduce the limit from 80 to 50 mg. After significant falls, there was a plateau in the number of deaths in the 1990s. As a couple of Members have pointed out, the number of drink-driving deaths has been creeping up. Since 1998, when it was 460, it has risen by more than 20 per cent., and last year it was 560. In 2003, 19,000 casualties were caused by alcohol-related crashes. The Government consulted on whether to change the limit in 1998, and in its consultation document the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions predicted that, as a result of reducing the limit from 80 to 50 mg, 50 lives a year would be saved. Using rough statistics, 97 per cent. of drivers either have no alcohol at all in their system or less than 50 mg. Those drivers are not anywhere near the present limit and most of them would not change their behaviour if it were reduced to 50 mg, as they are within that limit. Those people cause hardly any of the deaths on our roads, and their behaviour would be unlikely to change in future.
	As some Members have said, about 2 per cent. of drivers have no regard at all for the legal limit and far exceed it. They are often caught two, two and a half or three times over the limit. I concede that changing the limit from 80 to 50 mg will not make much difference to their behaviour. Our priority for them must remain enforcement, tough sentences and, to some extent, education and publicity. The final 1 per cent. of drivers are close to the present legal limit, and attempt to stay within the law. They are just under, just over or at 80 mg, and are responsible for a significant number of deaths on our roads. One assumes that they would adjust their behaviour in accordance with the new limit. They may not be within it, but they would try to keep to it, and would probably be a little under, about the right level or a little bit over. The latest assessment based on the 2003 statistics on alcohol-related deaths on our roads was made by Professor Richard Allsop of the centre for transport studies, University College London, who estimated that we would save 65 lives a year if we reduced the limit from 80 to 50 mg, and if 1 per cent. of drivers changed their behaviour to the extent that I described. That gain is worth having. The target is continually to reduce casualties, and it is reasonable to expect a contribution through the reduction of fatalities caused by drink-driving, but such a contribution is not currently being made. In addition to enforcement and education, we must change the limit.

Greg Knight: I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman's argument. How are the statistics relating to those motorists who are just under the limit collected? I understand how figures are available for drivers whose tests show 81, 82 or 83 mg of alcohol, but how on earth do we know whether a driver has a figure in the mid-70s? If we do not know the figures, does that not destroy the hon. Gentleman's argument? Those who break the existing law, not those who are just under the limit, are the problem.

David Kidney: The right hon. Gentleman has a point in the sense that we cannot tell who has been breaking the law if people are not prosecuted. If people are killed, however, an assessment is madein assessing why they died, the alcohol content in their blood is tested for the coroner, so we have the statistics to make an assessment. The up-to-date assessment is that about 130 deaths involve the 1 per cent. of drivers who are somewhere near the legal limit.
	I hesitate before introducing Europe into any debate, because I know that it has an unhealthy effect on some hon. Members, but the European Union has considered whether we should harmonise the limit across Europe. In 2001, the Commission recommended that all countries should adopt the same limit of 50 mg. That has not happened and, as hon. Members have said, some countries still have a limit of 20 mg. Three countries still have a limit of 80 mgwe are with Luxembourg and Irelandbut the centre of gravity has nevertheless moved to 50 mg, which is persuasive but not in itself convincing.
	I support the three measures in the Bill on drink-driving. Evidential roadside tests and, I hasten to add, tests at hospital bedsides are significant and will benefit the police in catching more people who break the law. We can make gains by closing the loophole relating to high-risk offenders and by piloting alcolocks. However, why do the Government not view the Bill as the right time to change the limit? I know that they say that most people are familiar with the present law, that enforcement is effective, that the penalties are tough and that we do not want to distract from the present regime by changing the law as well. I say that we would still have the same rigorous enforcement if we changed the limit.
	The Government spend a lot of money on publicity and education campaigns, which get ever harder hitting. Since 1998, however, they have not seen a return for their investment in a reduction in the number of fatalities. Now is the time to consider an additional elementnot a substitutionin order further to reduce such deaths. Because of the pressures of time, I will stop there, but I hope that we can further pursue that matter in Committee.

Louise Ellman: I welcome the Bill, which is an important contribution to reducing deaths, accidents and injuries on our roads. It is unacceptable that 10 people per day die on our roads, and it is also unacceptable that 90 people per day are seriously injured on our roads. We sometimes underestimate the importance of serious injury through accidentsinjuries can mean blighted lives.
	Given the shortage of time, I shall concentrate my brief comments on my two areas of concern. First, although the Government are well aware that speed kills and have shown in many ways how they want to deal with the issue, it is ironic that the unintended consequence of the proposal on graduated speeding fines, as it has been introduced for consultation, is that speeding in 30 mph zones could result in a reduced penalty. It is known that a pedestrian hit at 30 mph has a 50 per cent. chance of survival, while 90 per cent. of those hit at 40 mph die. Indeed, a pedestrian hit at 35 mph is twice as likely to die as one hit at 30 mph.In view of those facts, I ask the Government to think again before the Standing Committee considers the proposal for graduated penalties. Given the severe consequences, hon. Members should have more information about the Government's intentions before they are asked to vote for that principle.
	The second area to which I should like to draw attention is that of culpability for death or injury on the roads. Like other hon. Members, I ask the Minister to pursue with the Home Office the long-awaited publication of the Halliday report. All the evidence shows that death because of accidents on the roads is viewed far less seriously than death caused by any other means. That is simply unacceptable. When the Transport Committee recently took evidence, it became clear that bereaved families, among others, lack confidence in the system. There are worries about investigations at the scene of accidents and whether sufficient evidence is gathered and sufficient attention given to the possibility of culpability, and about the number of charges brought by the Crown Prosecution Service concerning careless, rather than dangerous, driving. Surely it is not right to put together and equate offences that include reading a newspaper and turning into a minor road and colliding with a pedestrian. Those two actions cannot be comparable, yet they are both classed under the heading of careless driving.
	No proper statistics are kept on what happens following fatal accidents or accidents where there are serious injuries. That requires changes by the Home Office and the CPS as well as by the Department for Transport. Bereaved families and families of injured people are not kept informed about or involved in the progress of prosecutions that follow the accident. I ask the Department for Transport and the Home Office to consider the Transport Committee's recommendation of a new offence of causing death or serious injury by negligent driving. That, with other measures, would show that the Government mean what they say and that the Secretary of State for Transport follows up his words about how seriously he regards death because of accidents on the roads.
	In general, this is a good Bill that will help to reduce accidents and death. However, as it passes through the House it is important that the Government reconsider the two areas of concern that I have outlined very briefly .

Kelvin Hopkins: Many points that I would have made have already been dealt with in the excellent speeches that have been made. I do not need to repeat them, but I hope to reinforce some of them.
	Road safety measures clearly save lives. I hope that the Bill will save more lives in future, but if it were strengthened it could save even more. In the past, there has been a cultural reluctance to accept safety measures and a kind of misguided libertarianism about driving. I think that that is well in the past and I hope that it will not return. We have experimented with voluntarism, especially with seat belts; that did not work, and we now realise that compulsion is necessary in many areas. We are making progress, and it is comforting that there is consensus across the Chamber.
	We have heard a lot this afternoon about the effect of different speeds on pedestrians hit by cars and their chances of survival. If we look at that in another way, we realise that between 20 mph and 30 mph one's chances of survival decrease 10 times, and that between 30 mph and 40 mph those chances decrease five times. Even between the speeds of 20 mph and 30 mph, there is a much greater chance of being killed when hit by a car. In crowded pedestrian areas in towns, it would therefore be sensible seriously to consider a default speed limit of 20 mph. The proposal has been presented by the Safer Streets Coalition in a well argued briefing that I urge my hon. Friends on the Front Bench to read.
	We have heard much debate about alcohol limits. I supported the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), who tabled an amendment on Report to the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003. The amendment was rejected, but the case has to be put again. I hope that the Government will be persuaded that the 50 mg limit should eventually become law. I would argue for an even lower limit. We have come to realise that we can save hundreds of lives by restricting alcohol and driving. We should go further to save lives and my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) made an effective speech on that.
	The culture and attitudes to driving have changed. That shows that hon. Members, as legislators, have a duty to represent people at their best and most sensible, not their most spontaneous and perhaps selfish. When Barbara Castle introduced the breathalyser, I was sitting in a pub, drinking a pint of beer. I hasten to add that I was not driving and that, even then, I was careful about the amount that I drank when I was driving. A petition against the breathalyser was circulated in the pub. I was the only person there who refused to sign it because I thought that the law was sensible and would save thousands of lives, thus making us all safer. I was not popular in the pub that day but I believe that I was right and that subsequent events have proved that.
	I support a general 20 mph limit in towns and a lower blood-alcohol level for drivers. Those measures would make a tremendous contribution to saving thousands more lives in future. I urge my hon. Friends on the Front Bench to consider those two specific points seriously. Otherwise, I support the Bill.

Mark Lazarowicz: Like other hon. Members who have spoken, I support the Bill, which contains many good provisions. I want to concentrate on aspects of it on which we can build and I hope that the Government will take some points on board either in Committee or in other ways in future.
	First, I endorse the comments of many other hon. Members about the problem with the graduated penalty proposals. I am worried that the message conveyed by adopting proposals for lower penalties for lower speeding would undermine the Government's good work on road safety. It would convey a message that a little bit of speeding does not do any harm. That is a dangerous message and it would be a big mistake to send it. We should face the fact that the problem of speeding below 40 mph in a 30 mph zone is not that people receive many penalty points but that, too often, the law is not enforced.
	In many parts of the country, there is no genuinely effective enforcement until people drive at 38 or 39 mph. I do not suggest that we should pursue with the full vigour of the law someone who inadvertently creeps one or two mph beyond a 30 mph limit. However, we must have much more effective enforcement of existing speed limits below the 10 mph leeway, which appears to be allowed in many parts of the country. That approach is not consistent and I would be interested to hear today or on another occasion what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary believes he can do to try to ensure a more consistent approach to enforcement of speed limits throughout the UK.
	I endorse the comments made by many hon. Members on drink-driving limits. The arguments for reducing the level to 50 mg are convincing and I hope that the Government will consider them in Committee. I also endorse the view expressed by many hon. Members that, if we are to improve still further our relatively good road safety record, we need to change not only our legislation but public attitudes. The change in public attitudes can be brought about in a number of ways, and legislation will certainly play a part in that, as it will underline the message that we take seriously offences of this nature. We also need more public education, although a lot of good work has already been done in that regard. We need more public information, more road safety education of all sorts in schools, including basic education about street safety, cycle training and a wide range of other measures. We also need more driver education, and more work to be done by vehicle manufacturers.
	Above all, we as public figures need to send a consistent message that cutting the toll of deaths and injuries on our roads must have a higher priority in the decisions that we take about traffic and transport. I, too, welcome the clear message given by the Secretary of State today about the way in which we should regard people who use their vehicle to drive dangerously. He drew a parallel between such people and those who create a danger by using a gun or other weapon. That was a powerful message and I endorse what he said.
	We have heard today about the tragic cases that have affected many hon. Memberswe all see such cases in our communities from time to time. It is also important, however, to send out the positive message that we can do things to make a difference at local level as well as at national level. In my own city of Edinburgh, the city council, the police and other agencies have worked together to make a real impact on reducing the number of deaths and injuries on the roads. Last year, for the first time since records began, some 75 years ago, not a single school-age child was killed on the roads in Lothian, the area that includes Edinburgh. That result was achieved by a road safety strategy involving a combination of engineering measures such as road humps, enforcement involving speed cameras, and education. This was not just a one-off strategy. Over the last 10 years, we have seen a reduction of 30 per cent. in the number of injuries on the roads. That consistent reduction has meant that we have had one of the highest reductions in accidents in the UK. It is time to learn from the example set by my city council, as well as by many other councils of different political colours in different parts of the country that have introduced measures to improve road safety in their communities.
	The use of speed cameras and other traffic calming measures of that nature results in howls of derision from certain sections of the community and the media. However, we have to underline the fact that none of usI am a driver myselfhas the right to break the speed limit. We must reject the spurious arguments about the Government attempting to raise revenue from cameras, because it diverts us from the fact that speed kills, and we do not need the carnage on the roads that still takes place despite our relatively good record compared with most other European countries.
	I welcome the fact that the Conservatives have said today that they will not vote against the Bill. This is an area in which we must try to achieve as much political consensus as possible. However, it is no use Conservative Front Benchers saying that they support the headline measures on road safety if, in the next breath, they come out with language that undermines the message being sent by those measures. I do not want to undermine the cross-party consensus that we have here today, but as we listened to the opening speech by the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), we heard all the same old arguments and urban myths about speed cameras. We heard the idea slip through that the Conservatives, if they came to power, would abolish the safety camera partnerships, which have done more than anything to reduce deaths and injury by speeding. It is no good, at one level, supporting road safety, while undermining in practice, with the message that is sent out, the intent of legislation.
	I say this with some hesitation but it needs to be said: when the message is sent out by some leading Conservativesalthough there are some honourable exceptions in the Conservative partythat a little speeding is okay and that it does not really qualify to be in the same league as other criminal offences, that contributes to the overall climate in which speeding is okay, and contributes to the campaign in some quarters against speed cameras and against enforcing speed legislation. We hear that too often from the Conservative Benches, and it contributes to making the roads less safe, and ultimately results in people dying or being injured on our roads who would not otherwise have died or been injured.
	Conservative Front Benchers must recognise that when they undermine the message of strict enforcement of speed limits, they are acting irresponsibly and encouraging some drivers to drive in a way that leads to people being killed and injured unnecessarily. With not too much expectation of a change of heart today, I urge them to act a little more responsibly in this area, and not to take an approach that leads to more people losing their lives and being injured than would otherwise be the case.

Christopher Chope: This debate has been well attended, and the contributions have been fewer and shorter than would have been the case had the Second Reading not lost two hours and 50 minutes to the three statements and the urgent question, which was a point made very well by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). Because of time constraints, I will not be able to respond to all the pertinent points that have been made. Unlike in most debates in the House, however, everyone who has spoken shares the same objective of improving road safety, and relatively small differences exist in relation to some of the means of achieving that objective.
	I shall start with one area in which there is unanimity about the need for enforcement. I must emphasise the way in which the Government have failed both their supporters in the House and Opposition Members who believe that we need more police enforcement of our road traffic laws. Road traffic law enforcement is not included in the core responsibilities of chief constables, a fact which was investigated by the Select Committee in its excellent report. All that has happened is that the Government have produced a rather lame response to the Select Committee report, and have today announced that they will now get serious about enforcement of road traffic law.
	Fortunately, only on 5 January I received a much delayed answer to a question that I had put to the Home Secretary on how many road traffic police officers there were in 1996, and how many there are now. It was quite a straightforward question, but it received a holding answer on 13 December, no doubt while the Government worked out how they were going to respond. The answer is rather interesting, as it shows that in the past four years 1,653 fewer police officers have been in front-line operational road policing, while the number of support staff has increased by 399, and an extra 400 have been involved in administrative supporta twentyfold increase. In 199697, this Government inherited 9,201 road traffic police officers, whereas now, according to the answer that I have received, there are only 6,276 operational traffic officersa reduction of between a quarter and 30 per cent. In the meantime, there has been an enormous increase in the number of operational support officers and organisational support administrative back-up staff.

Rob Marris: The hon. Gentleman has given some figures. Will he tell us what has happened to the fatality rate per 1 million km driven in the United Kingdom during the same period?

Christopher Chope: I deal with miles, actually, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that this Governmenthis Governmenthave tried to transfer the debate to a discussion of fatality rates per, say, 1,000 miles. When I was Roads Minister in a Conservative Government, we set a target for reducing the actual number of people killed on the roads, and we were very successful in achieving it. I do not claim all the credit myself, but during the two or three years for which I was the Minister, the annual toll of fatalities on the road fell by more than 1,000 a year. Under this Government, since 1997 the number of fatalities has reached a plateau. In fact, according to the most recent figure it rose slightly.
	Not surprisingly, the hon. Gentleman and, perhaps, Ministers are falling back on the number of fatalities per 1 million miles driven. Because of the higher mileage on the roads, the number may be falling as a small proportion, but it certainly does not compare with our record in government. Indeed, we would like to see a significant further reduction in the number of fatalities. One of the key ingredients is proper enforcement, and it is one of the ingredients that have been lacking in the Government's policy. It is no good just coming out today with a lame press release suggesting that everything will be rosy in the future, when we know that the figures suggest otherwise.
	The hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith(Mr. Lazarowicz) referred disparagingly to Conservative Members' comments about the need for police officers, and the fact that road safety cameras cannot be an adequate substitute. On 13 May 2004, Jan Berry, chairman of the Police Federation, said:
	I don't think you can remove the human element of policing and replace it with a camerain some force areas if you are going 35 mph at 2 am in a 30 mph area and no other traffic it would be extremely unusual for an officer to give you a ticketa speed camera doesn't have that discretion.
	That is what worries us. In 1996 there were about 300,000 speeding fines; in 2004 there were probably 3 million, but as I have pointed out, there has been no reduction in the absolute number of fatalities. Despite that, the Government are probably raking in anything between 60 million and 100 million in extra fines. Their policy is not working, and it is alienating the travelling public and road users generally.

Mark Lazarowicz: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Christopher Chope: I will not, because unfortunately our time is limited.
	The Select Committee Chairman, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich, said that the incidence of compliance with 30 mph limits was very smallthat there was 58 per cent. non-compliance. Speed limits must be worthy of respect, or they will be ignored. It is essential for us to have a sensible regime of speed limits, and sensible enforcement. That point has been made strongly by the Institute of Advanced Motorists, of which I am privileged to be a member. It has drawn attention to
	the increasing use of non-discretionary cameras in place of police officers who are able to able to apply discretion taking account of prevailing conditions. For example, the Government position on the motorway limit included the assertion that while at 70 mph drivers would regularly travel at 80 mph, if increased to 80 mph they would travel at 90 mph. This argumentation is clearly undermined if zero-tolerance cameras substitute police enforcement.
	The briefing paper continues by pointing out that
	speed limits are exactly that: limits. The IAM and other road safety organisations constantly remind drivers of this. They are the maximum speed where conditions allow and therefore, by definition, a lower speed must be appropriate where there are additional hazards e.g. traffic density, rain, fog, high pedestrian population etc . . . For their message to be credible it follows that the speed limit should be set as the maximum permitted speed where the road appears empty of moving hazards, the conditions dry and visibility clear.
	That is, I am afraid, far too infrequently the situation, which is why I am pleased to be able to tell the House this evening that the next Conservative Government, which will come in later this year, will conduct a review of speed limits on all English roads to ensure that posted speed limits are appropriate to the function and characteristics of the road. We will implement a consistent signposting policy across England to inform drivers, riders and passengers of these posted speed limits. That will have a major effect on the motoring public's confidence in the fairness of the system.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) made a most important speech, and I certainly endorse what he said about the Streetwise safety centre, which I also had the privilege of visiting. It has achieved an enormous amount for road safety in our area. He admitted to having been the victim of the penalty points system, and of speed cameras imposed temporarily on roads under repair. I am afraid that concern about such cameras is often expressed in the postbag by people who, when travelling along a road whose normal speed limit has been replaced by a temporary limit, find that the signposting is inadequate. As a result, they are caught outin circumstances for which they find it very hard to accept responsibility.
	My hon. Friend also made a very important point about the many cyclists on our roads who ride without lights. The Government should do something to help those who ride with lights that flash or pulsate, or which consist of light-emitting diodes, because currently they are outside the law. The chief executive of the parliamentary advisory committee on transport safety admitted to me in a conversation yesterday that he had such lights on his bike. Strictly speaking, they are outside the law, and this Bill gives the Government an opportunity to bring such cyclists within the law, and then to bear down more heavily on those who ride with no lights at all.

Anne Campbell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Christopher Chope: I am afraid that I do not have time to give way again.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) raised a number of important points, but his overall theme of the importance of education is one that we should take seriously in this debate on road safety. It is apparent that the Government are putting too little emphasis on education's role in improving road safety.
	Several contributors discussed the vexed issue of whether there should be a separate offence of careless driving resulting in death, and I can see the arguments for and against creating such an offence. However, I hope that, in responding to an amendment that we will table in Committee, the Government will compare that issue with what happens under the terms of section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. Through it, people are prosecuted for failing in their duty to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health and safety and welfare at work of an employee. The consequences of that failure bear heavily on the penalties imposed, and it is such issues that the victims of road accidents and the relatives of those involved in fatalities want the Government to address.
	Let us not forget, however, that motorists are paying 8 billion more every year in vehicle excise duty and fuel duty than they were when this Government took office. What are they getting in return? They are getting precious little investment in the road infrastructure or in new engineering works, which are also very important elements of road safety. I am pleased to announce that although this Government have backed away from a commitment to improving the A3 trunk road at Hindhead, the incoming Conservative Government will bring forward that project as quickly as possible.
	In conclusion, I think that the chairman of the Institute of Advanced Motorists hit the nail on the head when he spoke at the annual lunch. A member of the Government party was invited but, sadly, did not turn up: a space was left there, but I do not know the reason for the absence. The chairman said:
	Car cyclists and motorcyclists are not just part of the problem: they can beand need to bepart of the solution. Treat them fairly and get them back on-side, and there will be a rapid pay-back
	in road safety.

David Jamieson: It is always good to follow the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), because anyone can sound reasonable and measured after he has spoken at the Dispatch Box. I was interested to hear his comments. He says that he would spend more on roadsparticularly the A3 at Hindhead, for some reasonbut I do not know how that squares with the 2 billion cuts that the Conservatives have also promised. At some future time, we may hear the answer to that question.
	We have had a good-tempered debate with some excellent contributions on both sides of the House, and we have seen a wide degree of consensus on both the Front and the Back Benches for many of the measures in the Bill.
	Roads are key to our economic success, and vital for the movement of people and goods. Our economy is doing well. We have a successful and vital economy with more people owning cars, which is why our roads are busier than ever before. We must use those roads safely. The speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), the first to speak from the Back Benches today, was a powerful one, which made that point eloquently. We are grateful to her Select Committee for examining the proposals before the Bill was published, and its report was extremely useful in preparing the Bill. I hope that it will be used in the forthcoming stages of the Bill, too, particularly with regard to implementing particular measures later.
	I know that my hon. Friend will be disappointed that the Bill does not deal with some of the serious offences that have been under review for some years. Her views on that matter were also expressed by my hon. Friends the Members for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe) and for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller). Let me assure her and other Members that these matters are on the Home Office agenda, and consultation on them will start as soon as possible.
	Safety on our roads is important to each and every one of us in representing our constituencies, and all our constituencies are affected in some way by road safety. We have heard today, as we so often do in such debates, a number of personal and harrowing stories of constituents who have either suffered injuries themselves or had friends and neighbours killed or seriously injured. We also know that vulnerable young children and the elderly are particularly affected by road safety issues. That interest has been the catalyst for the high-quality debate that we have conducted here today. The debate continues outside this Chamber. Many interest groups, some of them parliamentary, have helped to progress those issues through their discussions and lobbying.
	As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in his opening speech, UK roads are some of the safest in the world, certainly in comparison with those in many other countries. That is due to action taken by successive Governments over a long period. I am not referring only to what has happened recently, but to the longer term. The vast majority of drivers in this country, young and old, are careful, considerate and law-abiding. The large quiet majority are people who wear their safety belts, do not exceed speed limits, do not use their mobile phones while driving and obey traffic laws.
	However, their safetyand the safety of the rest of usis compromised by the small minority who put other people's lives at risk. The people in that minority think that when it comes to driving, insurance is somehow an optional extra. They think that they are special, and can drink and then drive safely. They chatter on their mobile phones when they should be concentrating on the road ahead.

Paul Tyler: Will the Minister give way?

David Jamieson: Certainly. I am chattering, and will give way.

Paul Tyler: I warmly welcome clause 22, which deals with mobile phones, but will the Minister look again at the evidence provided by Brake, that very effective road safety pressure group? It suggests that even hands-free mobile phones can distract drivers. Will he consider that evidence again in Committee?

David Jamieson: Our recommendation is that people should not use a mobile phone at all when driving. However, the law must be enforceable. When we brought in the 30 fixed penalty last year, we said that we would hold a review in a year's time. The Bill contains the new measures to raise the fine and to impose the three penalty points that we promised. If necessary, we will review the law again in the future. The Bill contains a range of sensible and proportionate measures to make our roads safer.
	I will not have time to respond to all the points raised in the debate, so I invite hon. Members to whom I cannot respond to correspond with me, or to raise matters in Standing Committee. The hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) opened the debate for the Opposition, and I am grateful to him for his shared concerns and consensual approach. He said that he would not divide the House on Second Reading, as did the Liberal Democrat spokesman. It is good to have that consensus on this important Bill, although I fully expect there to be some differences about some of the smaller matters in it, which we will debate in the usual way.
	The hon. Member for South Suffolk said how differently we in this country treat deaths on the road from deaths arising from rail or air crashes, or other causes. Other hon. Members made the same point, including my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon).
	I think that we are going through a gradual cultural change in this matter. I am glad to say that the number of people injured is falling, as is the death rate. The static figure for deaths is about 3,500 a year, and we have to tackle that. I hope that the House's consensual approach will allow us to find a way to do so.
	The hon. Member for South Suffolk mentioned the EuroRAP map, and said that it showed some roads to be more dangerous than others. That is to be expected, but local authorities and the Highways Agency are devoting a lot of energy to identifying which roads and junctions are most dangerous and problematic. We are focusing our attention, and our funding, on those roads. If we are to pay for the improvements that the hon. Gentleman wants, we must put the funding in. In those circumstances, cuts would not be appropriate.

Anne Campbell: My hon. Friend has said that he will be taking another look at dangerous roads, so will he look again at the A14, which runs between Cambridge and Huntingdon? A very large number of accidents happen on that road, so can anything be done to improve the situation before 2010?

David Jamieson: We appreciate the dangers of that piece of road, and I know that my hon. Friend has lobbied consistently on the issue. Those are the sort of dangers that we want to address, but she will know that it is incumbent on us to tackle the worst first. We must deal with the greatest problems first.
	The Conservative party has performed either a U-turn or a complete 360-degree turnI am not sure whichin respect of speed cameras. The hon. Member for Christchurch did a wonderful job in 1990 when he introduced safety cameras. However, the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) argued all last year that most of those cameras were in the wrong place and should be removed. I am glad that the hon. Member for South Suffolk has brought some calm common sense to the Conservative Benches, as he clearly realises that he is on a losing issue with the electorate. The vast majority of people in this country do not believe that people should be able to speed freely. They believe that their children should be able to cross the road without having speeding drivers around them. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support.
	The hon. Member for South Suffolk proposed an audit of the cameras. We have already done that. Some of his Conservative colleagues in local government have also carried out an audit. I repeat the challenge that I made to the Tory Front-Bench team 13 months ago. If the hon. Gentleman knows where there are cameras that do not meet the criteria, let him tell the House where they are. After 13 months, nobody on the Conservative Benches has come up with a single example of a camera that has been wrongly placed.
	I am glad to have the support of the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso). He spoke about pedestrians being killed at various speeds, and the issue of variable speed limits. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in his opening remarks, the variable penalty is only an enabling power in the Bill. The detail will come later, after careful consultation. That is an important matter, because the faster the car is going, the more likely it is that people will be killed.
	Repeater signs are not dealt with in the Bill. There are difficulties associated with cost and with the clutter of street signs. The present system, whereby a built-up area where there are lights is a 30 mph zone, goes back 70-odd years. On bull bars, a subject which interests my hon. Friends, we are negotiating a new European directive to control their use. It is my view that they have no place on any vehicle on the road.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax, who chairs the all-party group on road safety, contrasted our attitudes to death caused by various modes of transport. The law already empowers local authorities to reduce speed limits to 20 mph. I take her point about sleep-related issues. They are important, but in the main do not need to be dealt with in primary legislation.
	The hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) spoke with great enthusiasm about many of the measures in the Bill, particularly those dealing with foreign lorries, equal treatment of British subjects and foreigners on our roads, rest areas and uninsured drivers. He spoke about a level playing field across Europe. I agree about common practice, enforcement and information sharingbut whether we want the same laws as other countries in the European Union, I very much doubt. We have a better record, and those countries look to our legislation as an example, rather than the other way round.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough made an impassioned speech on behalf of his constituents. The penalties issue that he raised is being examined by the Home Office. My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston has a long history of interest in road safety matters. I thank him for his support. He raised some interesting points, which the Committee may want to consider.
	The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) made a helpful speech, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), although he said that the Bill did not go far enough. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) chairs the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety, so his commitment, and that of the people with whom he works, is clear.
	We are concerned about the death statistics. We have been successful in reducing the number of serious injuries on the roads, and I agree that we must now turn our attention to reducing the number of deaths. Sadly, the figures rose last year, mainly because of an increase in the number of motor cyclist deaths, and we must address that issue. However, I am very much opposed to the harmonisation of penalties across Europe.
	In conclusion, each crash brings human misery for those who are injured and the families of those who are killed, and a massive cost to our economy. The Bill contains a number of measures that will help to make our roads safer; it will be welcomed by all of us, and I commend it to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read a Second time.

ROAD SAFETY BILL (PROGRAMME)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 83A(6),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Road Safety Bill:
	Committal
	1. The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.
	Proceedings in Standing Committee
	2. Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 3rd February 2005.
	3. The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
	Consideration and Third Reading
	4. Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
	5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
	Programming Committee
	6. Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.
	Other proceedings
	7. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further messages from the Lords) may be programmed. [Mr. Watson.]
	The House divided: Ayes 330, Noes 161.

Question accordingly agreed to.

ROAD SAFETY BILL [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52 (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with Bills),
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Road Safety Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of
	(1) expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State in consequence of the Act, and
	(2) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided in consequence of any other Act.[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
	Question agreed to.

ROAD SAFETY BILL [WAYS AND MEANS]

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52 (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with Bills),
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Road Safety Bill, it is expedient to authorise
	(1) the making of provision for financial penalty deposits and provision for imposing fees and charges, and
	(2) the making of payments into the Consolidated Fund.  [Mr. Jim Murphy.]
	Question agreed to.

PETITION
	  
	Cliff Erosion

Derek Wyatt: I wish to present a petition from the residents of Warden bay, Leysdown, Bayview and from holiday home owners at the eastern end of the Isle of Sheppey. The petition states:
	We declare that because of failure to remedy the cliff erosion homes will be lost, property devalued, and we live in constant fear of flooding by sea.
	The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons take immediate action to ensure that the cliffs are protected with the method presented to DEFRA.
	To lie upon the Table.

COMMUNITY TRANSPORT (SOUTH DERBYSHIRE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. [Mr. Jim Murphy.]

Mark Todd: We have an opportunity in this short debate to reflect both on a local south Derbyshire success story and on evidence of the success of a Government and local authority programme in my area, which, I am sure, is reflected to some extent in other parts of the country. That success has been based on a partnership between Derbyshire county council, supported by central Government fundingI shall expand on that subject later in my speechthe local, voluntary and professional management of the community transport service in Swadlincote, South Derbyshire district council and a number of parish councils in south Derbyshire, which have been involved in developing local transport solutions for their individual communities.
	First, I shall provide a few raw facts. In 1997, Community Transport (Swadlincote), which had been in existence for some eight years by that time, carried 17,583 passengers in five vehicles. In 2004, the same service carried 72,683 passengers in 21 vehicles. All hon. Members will accept that that is a huge increase in passenger usage and in the scale and capacity of community transport in south Derbyshire. Community transport was operated over nearly 100,000 miles during 2004.
	In 1997, the service operated out of a Nissen hut. Thanks to a lottery award early in the life of this Government, however, it now operates out of a modern, purpose-built garage, which has, however, become increasingly hard pressed for space as the service has developed. The garage has also provided a base for a number of innovative schemes to offer transport services to rural areas, and I shall touch on several of those schemes in my speech.
	One such scheme, which I shall mention now, was prompted by the introduction of the new deal and my identification, along with the county council, of the fact that it was difficult for unemployed people in rural areas to obtain transport to get work or even to go to interviews and take up opportunities. A bid was put in to support new deal transport for people in rural areas, and the service was run for a number of years to support people with those needs.
	Although I shall mainly concentrate on Community Transport (Swadlincote), I also want to acknowledge the role played by other voluntary sector transport schemes in the area. In particular, I want to refer to the social car scheme operated through the South Derbyshire Council for Voluntary Service, which completed nearly 2,000 runs in 2004 to those who need specific and personal transport, which is often required for medical reasons. Some 31 volunteers have given freely of their time, energy and vehicles to provide that important and personal service in the past year, and this is an opportunity to thank them and those who organised that service for their valuable contribution to community needs in south Derbyshire.
	Government help has been available on several levels. First, they have supported two rural bus challenge bids, which have directly helped Community Transport (Swadlincote). Since 1999, that help has secured the growth of the service until 2007the latest scheme has just been authorised for a further three years. In the first phase of the rural bus challenge, 30,000 additional passenger journeys occurred. People would not otherwise have been able to undertake those journeys, and they would have had to rely on their own private transport or lifts from other people.
	The latest award245,000 over a three-year periodwill consolidate the development of rural services and link to a specific award in the north-west of south Derbyshire, which is the most rural and remote part of the district, serving the areas around the villages of Hilton, Etwall and Church Broughton. This is an opportunity to pay tribute to the parish councils for those areas for their vision and practical work, assisted by others. I did a mailing to several parish councils in my area suggesting that they address local transport needs. I particularly congratulate the three that I mentioned and one or two others in the area. Findern, the village in south Derbyshire where I live, has also been active in taking up the opportunity to look closely at local transport requirements and then working with community transport on solutions.
	Much of the area involved had virtually non-existent services. The bus service in Church Broughton was charmingly described as a market-day service. The traditional view of what was provided in rural areas was a bus service that went only once a week and was related to a market somewhere else in another town. That very rudimentary access to public transport has now been supplemented dramatically by access to dial-a-ride services and group services for individuals and groups in those communities.
	The Government have sharply increased the funds available to the county council for more general support for public transport in Derbyshire. This is an opportunity to congratulate a Labour county council that was, with substantial justice, classed as excellent in the last three comprehensive performance assessments. It has used the additional funding extremely well. Part of it has gone towards supplementing additional scheduled services in the area, for example by deepening the coverage for weekends and evenings, but a very large   proportion134,000 last yearhas gone to   Community Transport (Swadlincote) to support dial-a-bus and group travel services throughout the district.

David Taylor: Does my hon. Friend agree that community transport in south Derbyshire could well be integrated with some form of improved rail services linking Leicester via Coalville and Ashby-de-la-Zouch to Burton-on-Trent, and serving some of the villages in his constituency? Would some Government funding in that area repay the necessary investment, and could we hear from the Minister on that?

Mark Todd: I thank my hon. Friend and neighbouring Member for that contribution. He is absolutely right. We have both campaigned actively for the restoration of passenger services through the southern part of south Derbyshire. Such a scheme would include a new station at Castle Gresley It is regrettable that a combination of narrowness at central Government level and occasional lack of vision from some of the councils involvedalthough not Derbyshire county council and my own district council of South Derbyshirehas meant that little progress has been made on the project, but it would undoubtedly improve access to the main rail transport network for many of my constituents.
	The second initiative that deserves credit is that the Government now rebate fuel duty to community transport operators. To give the Minister an example of how valuable that is to a community transport service, in south Derbyshire in the past year it has saved 18,000 that could be applied to service development. It is an extremely valuable supplementary source of revenue that was not available before that change implemented by this Government.
	The Government have made more flexible the rules relating to the operation of community transport. We all recognise that it would be entirely inappropriate to support through public funds direct competition with private sector bus providers. However, too narrow a restriction on the development of services can be unhelpful. When I spoke to Community Transport (Swadlincote) before speaking here this evening, I was told that although legitimate restrictions remain, it is now much more a case of defining instances where services may not be provided than of following the much narrower path of very precisely restricted services that could be provided by community transport.
	I welcome that change of tone and balance in the regulatory framework in which community transport operates. Much of the development of group travel services, which has grown rapidly in south Derbyshire, providing, for example, door-to-door services that deliver frail passengers to shopping centres in nearby towns, reflects that more liberal approach of dealing with community transport in a more permissive environment than previously existed.
	I would personally welcome a further examination of the restrictions on community transport, especially the way in which it could work with employers to develop sustainable travel packages for employees. I should like my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to reflect on that. There is much to commend the way in which a small, flexible operator could work with employers to develop packages to bring employees to work. I can remember working in a company that operated a bus service for its employees around the town where most of them lived. That has gone out of fashion. However, there is now an opportunity to reflect on what a neat and nimble-footed operator such as Community Transport (Swadlincote) could do with local employers to improve the sustainability of transport options for employees in the area.
	It is worth adding that the massive development of service and the growth in passenger numbers has been achieved while maintaining excellent relations with private operators, both private scheduled operators and those who offer coach services in the area. People get on well together, understand the differences between their businesses and I have come across no complaints about that. Indeed, offers of co-operation have sometimes been made and much appreciated.
	Is there any cloud on that undoubted local success? I should like the Under-Secretary to give some thought to a couple of matters. The first point is mainly a matter for local initiative but the Government could examine ways in which to facilitate it. I am proud to say that south Derbyshire is now generally an area of relative prosperity. South Derbyshire district has the highest average income in Derbyshire. Employment is high and rising. That means that recruiting volunteers, who play an important role in supplementing the activities of community transport's paid employees, can be tough and rewarding paid staff sufficiently to retain them can also be difficult. Opportunities for other employment abound in the area.
	The county council has recognised the problem and is trying to develop a package of promotions that will attract people to the important roles of, for example, assisting disabled users, which need to be filled. It is normally helpful to have a volunteer to supplement the work of the driver and others to help people to get in and out of vehicles. It is hard to get people to fulfil those critical functions.
	The second point relates directly to central Government responsibilities. While the range of services that Community Transport (Swadlincote) offers is secure in the medium termI have mentioned 2007for the rural services in particular, much has depended on the success of bids to central Government. As with any project based on that initial fundingI also have a mini Sure Start scheme in Derbyshire that suffers from the same problemthe start of the process is pump primed, but a way of mainstreaming the funding support must be found so that the service can continue to develop and be retained.
	I urge the Under-Secretary to initiate discussions on how to structure a transfer of funding responsibility over time, subject to quality tests on the services supported. All the evidence that I have seen suggests that Community Transport (Swadlincote) is doing an absolutely fantastic job in serving a large number of people who are disadvantaged, either because they live in a remote rural location or by their disabilities or other requirements, and are therefore less able to use public transport.
	Community transport in south Derbyshire has achieved huge growth across a wide range of services, and it has started to demonstrate that there is a huge, unmet demand for public transport in the area. It deserves greater certainty in its planning, and if the Government take the steps that I have described, they will be able to offer it that increased security, which will allow it to build on the tremendous successes that it has already achieved.

Charlotte Atkins: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) not only on securing this debate, but on his role in promoting community transport in his constituency. I know that he has been a champion of this transport service.
	Community and voluntary transport have a key role to play across the whole country, in both urban and rural areas. I do not want to disappoint my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor), but I fear that his proposal would require an excessive subsidy to make it viable. We are at present focusing on bringing community transport schemes into being under existing viable projects, as he knows because he was present at our debate earlier today. I hope, however, that the kind of scheme to which he referred will become viable in future.
	The challenges might vary, but the need for transport for those who are socially excluded for reasons of income, gender, race, disability or geographical isolation is always there. The community and voluntary transport sector has been at the forefront in helping to meet those people's needs. Indeed, the services that it offers have developed and evolved over many years, particularly over the past decade, with enormous changes to their scale, scope and range, and to the professionalism of those providing them.
	The breadth of the community transport sector's activities is impressive, and it is perhaps too easy to lose sight of the sheer scale of the operation. The Community Transport Association, which represents the majority of schemes across the country, estimates that there are some 5,000 schemes in the UK, which between them run about 60,000 minibuses. They do so with the help of about 250,000 volunteers and 10,000 full-time paid drivers. I take on board the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire about the difficulty of recruiting volunteers; many organisations face that problem. Together, the schemes deliver some 5 million trips for almost 2 million people with mobility problems. Any transport provider would be proud of that record. It is perhaps all the more laudable when we consider that this activity is taking place in the voluntary sector. However, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, funding for the sector is not straightforward, and I fully appreciate the difficulties to which uncertainty over future funding and the complexities of funding applications can sometimes give rise. We shall certainly consider those issues.
	This brings me to the issues surrounding rural transport services. Rural travel patterns have changed markedly over the past 30 years. We have seen a significant growth in car ownership in rural areas. Public transport had become a marginal form of transport, and people's journeys became longer as the number of local shops and services declined due to the consolidation of essential services such as health care, post offices and banks. For people without access to a car, that meant increasing difficulties in accessing employment opportunities and essential services.
	This lack of accessibility is a significant cause of social exclusion in rural areas, and we recognise the need to improve the transport infrastructure and to enhance rural accessibility. The measures that we are taking are having a positive impact. New and enhanced bus services are being delivered across all rural counties, improving the links between market towns and halting the decline in bus use in rural areas.
	Over the past five years, we have more than doubled local authority funding for transport projects. For those authorities with extensive rural communities, considerable funding is being directed at rural areas. An important ingredient of achieving rural renewal is good- quality rural bus services. We have specifically targeted more resources to improve rural bus services. More than 50 million will be spent this financial year alone on the rural bus subsidy grant. More than 2,200 new and enhanced bus services are now being funded from this grant across England, on which some 29 million passenger journeys are being made per year. We have succeeded in giving a much-needed boost to transport links for many rural communities. Our Future for Transport White Paper announced the continuation of the rural bus subsidy grant beyond April 2006.
	Additional resources for conventional bus services are not the only answer in rural areas. Solutions need to be tailored to local circumstances. We want better targeting of resources by local authorities to meet accessibility needs, greater promotion of rural transport services and a more joined-up approach that links public transport and less conventional services

David Taylor: The Minister refers to a more joined-up approach, and at the beginning of her speech she was kind enough to refer to my intervention. Does she acknowledge that there is a possibility of joining up and integrating bus and rail services in some parts of the country? Will she review with her officials the costings for the national forest line running between Leicester and Burton, through North-West Leicestershire and South Derbyshire, because the passenger figures that produce the prime income are excessively bleak and were drawn up at a time when the two districts involved were much less developed, in all sorts of senses, than they are now?

Charlotte Atkins: Certainly, I will be happy to accede to that request. I have not seen the detailed figures, and I would be only too delighted to examine them.
	Detailed local transport planning and accessibility planning guidance was distributed to local authorities at the end of last year. It asks authorities to produce accessibility strategies as part of their next local transport plans, which should include their visions and objectives for accessibility based on an assessment of the needs and problems of the area. The strategies should also suggest how initial priorities will be tackled. The Department has a number of initiatives aimed at supporting the community and voluntary sector in rural and urban areas, and is currently reviewing the permit regimes relating to the community transport sector in order to reduce the barriers to further expansion

Mark Todd: On that point, I referred specifically to considering partnerships with local employers on transport packages. In my area, for example, a major employer such as Toyota, which obviously produces motor vehicles, would, I am sure, welcome an opportunity to work with other transport providers to provide appropriate transport to bring its employees in and out of work.

Charlotte Atkins: That is absolutely right. We should not forget the bicycle in this respect, as there are tax incentives for employers to provide bicycles to employees at good rates, to ensure that they encourage employees to come to work by bicycle rather than provide them with a car parking space. There are many ways in which employers can encourage sustainable transport policies.
	One of the most significant initiatives has been the extension to many community transport operators of the bus service operators grant. Since its introduction in May 2002, more than 800 community transport operators in England have become eligible, and I understand that all the Derbyshire schemes are now claiming. This is a continuing grant providing the organisations concerned with significant help in meeting their operating costs.
	With regard to the interests of rural communities in particular, since 1998 the Department has provided significant levels of funding to improve the provision of bus services in rural areas. The rural bus challenge scheme, which has funded 300 projects, has been successful in making possible the development of a wide range of innovative schemes. It has helped many successful projects to become established and to reach the stage of being strong candidates for mainstream funding from local authorities or other sources. It has demonstrated the potential, in particular, of flexibly routed and demand-responsive services in the meeting of local transport needs. More specifically, the Department provided nearly 500,000 for the 2003 rural bus challenge competition for four different rural transport schemes in south Derbyshire involving community transport providers. While we have helped to stimulate many of those initiatives, I acknowledge the hard work and dedication that community groups have invested in improving the quality of life for the many people who rely on them.
	Of course we recognise that the funding regimes I have outlined do not provide a long-term funding base for schemes, but that was never our intention, and we made it clear from the outset of the ruraland urbanbus challenge that it was never intended to be a source of permanent revenue support. The main aim was to show the scope for innovation and new approaches, and to get projects under way that would then become part of the mainstream in terms of funding. While I recognise the pressures on local authority resources for revenue support of buses, I should point out that overall Government grant has increased for this year by 7.3 per cent., and by 30 per cent. since 1997.
	Some authorities clearly have an exceptional record of working in close and supportive partnership with community transport. Derbyshire is one such authority: its record is commendable and long standing. Others, however, have not yet recognised the value of working in partnership. Many are continuing to provide funding one year at a time. That gives no basis for planning or development.
	I believe that it is also important to engage community transport providers in the local transport plan process at a strategic level, in recognition of their contribution to public transport delivery. Again, I acknowledge that Derbyshire is at the forefront of that approach. The LTP guidance to local authorities emphasises the need to encourage active involvement by that sector, but too many community and voluntary transport providers continue to be treated as an optional extra in the transport mix. Those issues too are addressed in the accessibility planning guidance.
	Where do we go from here in terms of funding? We all recognise that community and voluntary transport schemes are vital to the mix of transport provision. The Government want to do all that they can to ensure that such schemes can thrive. As we have heard today, the funding issue is a key factor in determining how the sector can continue and develop effectively. It is important that for those involved to be able to share their experiences, learn from others and develop their funding policies with the broadest possible understanding of the sector. To that end, we have commissioned the Community Transport Association to produce a good practice guide to funding. The association is due to deliver the guide early this year, and we intend to make it widely available to all involved. Moreover, the funding issue will no doubt be considered in the context of a research project that we have commissioned to look at the role of community transport in reducing social exclusion. One of the aims of that work is to identify and evaluate the funding regimes available to the sector.
	As part of our commitment to the compact with the voluntary sector, we have now completed the working in partnership with the voluntary and community sector strategy and action plan. That document outlines how the Department has met, and will continue to meet, the aims of the compact. Through continued liaison with the sector, we will obtain views on the Government's transport agenda and on barriers that voluntary organisations face in providing a full and sustainable service. A community liaison manager has been in post for six months to deal with that.
	Our role is to provide a policy, regulatory and financial framework at national level so that the transport system works for everyone. That is a challenging task, but one that we are committed to completing.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes to Eight o'clock.